My own experience with snap and assistance programs is that unless you can get yourself into a higher paying job to be far beyond poverty levels, you have a high chance of disqualifying yourself if you start saving “too much” money. Then, you burn through your savings and need assistance again.
The minimum wage in my state is $15/hour, but a livable wage is more ~$45/hour. It’s also an at-will state, so you can be let go for anything.
It used to be that 1 week’s wages = 1 month’s rent; not having this standard is what is driving much of the inequality everywhere in this country.
With housing, healthcare, and food as a given basic right/necessity/whatever you want to [label] it, we could be at the Federal Minimum wage and still lead a fulfilling, productive, and prosperous life. Those 3 things are the main bottlenecks of the difference between living and existing/surviving.
Submission statement: the piece addresses the criticism of SNAP and other government welfare programs, that it leads to laziness and dependence on the government, and argues that the data shows a different conclusion, especially for members of marginalized communities.
Im sorry but this has to be the most cope article ever written. Dependence clearly refers to the major flaw of welfare being withdrawn above a certain income level and encouraging skating by
In social science and politics the term “welfare dependency” refers to the conservative political theory that welfare makes people lazy and over reliant on the government. It has never been well supported by the data.
This data specifically demonstrates how thats true tho. Lazy in the sense that they will never strive to reach a superior level of employment or achievement. Or... they also engage in societally destructive behaviors like trying to become a millionaire rapper endorsing drugs and transactional sex and hurting others
Maybe offer some evidence to back up what you are saying. You are commenting on an article that brings evidence with anecdotes and dogwhistles pulled from your behind. Do better.
Most of the problems I've seen stem from the fact that assistance completely drops as soon as your income is above a certain level. To some degree this is fine, but it creates what is effectively a higher tax rate for lower incomes. At times this tax rate can exceed 100%, which is obviously less than ideal.
Everything would be lot neater if we simply decouple assistance and income, making assistance independent from income and simply using higher income taxes to pay it back. Mathematically this is basically equivalent, but for some reason people get scared if you suggest it. Usually because it then becomes obvious some parts of the current system don't make sense but they dislike the consequences of removing those parts.
Universal programs are also generally cheaper and easier to administer. Get rid of means testing, and you get rid of a TON of overhead necessary to only ensure certain people are receiving a given benefit. This is a big part of the reason why Medicare is so much cheaper to administer (as a percentage of overall spending) than Medicaid. The only real check for eligibility is age, and you only really need to do that once.
On the section claiming it to show that aid doesn't create dependency, it has no argument. It says that 39% of SNAP recipients worked at some point during the year they received SNAP. That proves nothing. You'd have to show that people were permanently getting off of welfare. Otherwise, it could just be people doing just enough to qualify. Something more concrete.
And this
>The remaining 61% were not employed in any given month, but SNAP's work requirements apply only to non-disabled adults ages 16-59, meaning a substantial share of that group is made up of children, seniors, and people with disabilities who are exempt from the requirement entirely.
No it doesn't mean that a substantial share were made up of that group. You could cite some actual data instead of hand waving it. Then smugly concluding your bias is correct.
Here is a breakdown of the demographics of SNAP recipients. I think 62% or people getting it are either a child or in a HH with children and most people who receive SNAP benefits who are adults and not elderly work within the year of receiving SNAP benefits.
This would make sense something like 83% if prime aged people work and some who do not are stay at home spouses or independently wealthy. A relatively small percentage of working aged adults is just sitting around collecting SNAP benefits. Which makes sense because SNAP doesn't pay the rent and for non-disabled people there is very little in the way of cash assistance.
A lot of people receiving SNAP benefits are low income households that meet the requirement due to HH size but have some form of income. Let's say someone has 2 kids and it makes no sense to pay for childcare because the only job either of the parents can get is low paid. So you just have one low paid parent. Maybe they have some subsidized housing or low cost situation, lots of people like that. Or even more likely it's a single mom worn more than one kid who is working what she can while raising kids.
The data has always been clear that people do not become dependent on welfare. There is a two year limit on TANF, but even before then the vast majority of people were off in 2 years or less. Welfare does not pay enough to survive, no one is getting hooked on that.
redyellowblue5031 | 11 hours ago
My own experience with snap and assistance programs is that unless you can get yourself into a higher paying job to be far beyond poverty levels, you have a high chance of disqualifying yourself if you start saving “too much” money. Then, you burn through your savings and need assistance again.
Ask me how I know.
_the_last_druid_13 | 4 hours ago
There are money caps too for some benefits.
The minimum wage in my state is $15/hour, but a livable wage is more ~$45/hour. It’s also an at-will state, so you can be let go for anything.
It used to be that 1 week’s wages = 1 month’s rent; not having this standard is what is driving much of the inequality everywhere in this country.
With housing, healthcare, and food as a given basic right/necessity/whatever you want to [label] it, we could be at the Federal Minimum wage and still lead a fulfilling, productive, and prosperous life. Those 3 things are the main bottlenecks of the difference between living and existing/surviving.
[OP] Flashy-Vacation9226 | 14 hours ago
Submission statement: the piece addresses the criticism of SNAP and other government welfare programs, that it leads to laziness and dependence on the government, and argues that the data shows a different conclusion, especially for members of marginalized communities.
AdAppropriate2295 | 7 hours ago
Im sorry but this has to be the most cope article ever written. Dependence clearly refers to the major flaw of welfare being withdrawn above a certain income level and encouraging skating by
Grimke42 | 6 hours ago
In social science and politics the term “welfare dependency” refers to the conservative political theory that welfare makes people lazy and over reliant on the government. It has never been well supported by the data.
AdAppropriate2295 | 6 hours ago
This data specifically demonstrates how thats true tho. Lazy in the sense that they will never strive to reach a superior level of employment or achievement. Or... they also engage in societally destructive behaviors like trying to become a millionaire rapper endorsing drugs and transactional sex and hurting others
Katyafan | 4 hours ago
Maybe offer some evidence to back up what you are saying. You are commenting on an article that brings evidence with anecdotes and dogwhistles pulled from your behind. Do better.
XkF21WNJ | 10 hours ago
Most of the problems I've seen stem from the fact that assistance completely drops as soon as your income is above a certain level. To some degree this is fine, but it creates what is effectively a higher tax rate for lower incomes. At times this tax rate can exceed 100%, which is obviously less than ideal.
Everything would be lot neater if we simply decouple assistance and income, making assistance independent from income and simply using higher income taxes to pay it back. Mathematically this is basically equivalent, but for some reason people get scared if you suggest it. Usually because it then becomes obvious some parts of the current system don't make sense but they dislike the consequences of removing those parts.
mojitz | 5 hours ago
Universal programs are also generally cheaper and easier to administer. Get rid of means testing, and you get rid of a TON of overhead necessary to only ensure certain people are receiving a given benefit. This is a big part of the reason why Medicare is so much cheaper to administer (as a percentage of overall spending) than Medicaid. The only real check for eligibility is age, and you only really need to do that once.
Key-Organization3158 | 13 hours ago
This article shows nothing.
On the section claiming it to show that aid doesn't create dependency, it has no argument. It says that 39% of SNAP recipients worked at some point during the year they received SNAP. That proves nothing. You'd have to show that people were permanently getting off of welfare. Otherwise, it could just be people doing just enough to qualify. Something more concrete.
And this >The remaining 61% were not employed in any given month, but SNAP's work requirements apply only to non-disabled adults ages 16-59, meaning a substantial share of that group is made up of children, seniors, and people with disabilities who are exempt from the requirement entirely.
No it doesn't mean that a substantial share were made up of that group. You could cite some actual data instead of hand waving it. Then smugly concluding your bias is correct.
thebigmanhastherock | 12 hours ago
Here is a breakdown of the demographics of SNAP recipients. I think 62% or people getting it are either a child or in a HH with children and most people who receive SNAP benefits who are adults and not elderly work within the year of receiving SNAP benefits.
This would make sense something like 83% if prime aged people work and some who do not are stay at home spouses or independently wealthy. A relatively small percentage of working aged adults is just sitting around collecting SNAP benefits. Which makes sense because SNAP doesn't pay the rent and for non-disabled people there is very little in the way of cash assistance.
A lot of people receiving SNAP benefits are low income households that meet the requirement due to HH size but have some form of income. Let's say someone has 2 kids and it makes no sense to pay for childcare because the only job either of the parents can get is low paid. So you just have one low paid parent. Maybe they have some subsidized housing or low cost situation, lots of people like that. Or even more likely it's a single mom worn more than one kid who is working what she can while raising kids.
Elderly people on fixed incomes as well.
Grimke42 | 6 hours ago
The data has always been clear that people do not become dependent on welfare. There is a two year limit on TANF, but even before then the vast majority of people were off in 2 years or less. Welfare does not pay enough to survive, no one is getting hooked on that.