Printable View
What? Oregon is among the ten states which have largest populations on food stamps. All other 9 states are the usual suspects.
What is happening here? I would have expected MY state to be in this group before Oregon.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/personal...tml/?a=viewall
Well, since cannabis is perfectly legal in Oregon, would it seem logical that maybe they don't drug screen for assistance benefits, and people who are um, less than ambitious, are moving there for those reasons? I know that in the very rednecked heartland, (where pot is illegal) there is a lot of resentment toward people on food cards. I will go as far to say that I can spot Those People in the grocery store, just by looking at what they've got in their cart, and so can other people I know. So, the goody-goody types looking to get elected to the state legislature will campaign on a platform of promises that includes: lets make it tough on people getting food assistance and so on, who use cannabis! Maybe it is a problem; but the get-tough solutions usually end up being the wrong ones, or else helpful alternatives fail to be implemented. You can't put people out in the cold, hungry, on account of it, and call yourself a good person. Well can you? Another thing about Oregon, is the misconception that it is universally prosperous. Well, not really; you have rural areas that are economically depressed, with lots of poor people, that qualify for benefits. You have the forestry industries and other companies involved in exploitation of natural resources, that cease operations, leaving large numbers of unskilled people unemployed. There are also seasonal workers, too. They don't want to pack up and move, or they just can't. So, they live off of assistance, and work odd jobs, until some other major employer comes along again, offering steady jobs. See? Hope that helps you some. Probably, not though. Thankk mee.
I see that all states in the article have about 20% of the population on food stamps. I am surprised by such a high number.
And I wonder how many people just need food stamps for a short period in between jobs, and how many need it for years because their situation does not improve.
Are food stamps linked to other aids? Like job-search assistance or education? Anything that helps people get back on their own feet?
Food stamps are a massive employer assistance program - they allow people to survive in jobs that don't pay enough to live on.
That's an interesting way to look at it, although conversely, it might also be seen as a means to keep people from achieving independence from government by keeping them relatively comfortable under their rulers.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I don't see how there's a whole lot of comfort being under the thumb of anyone--in fact lack of autonomy is the principle cause of stress, so I don't see too many people making minimum wage feeling really comfortable about their situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Here are some food stamp myths published on the website of an organization my daughter worked for
https://nyccah.org/learn-about-hunger/food-stamp-myths
Also, as it says in the article, you are eligible for food stamps if you earn $1265/month. You can work a minimum wage job 40 hours a week full time and not even get to that point. That's the working poor. So until the minimum wage is raised, looks like we'll just have to keep subsidizing people whose employers don't want to give their employees a living wage, but who then want to call food stamp recipients lazy bums who soak the taxpayers.
In my work as a psychiatric nurse, I've personally known social workers with a bachelors degree whose family qualified for food stamps. Something is wrong with our economic system when a professional with a 4 year degree, working in their chosen profession full time, qualifies for food stamps.
True, there's something wrong with a system that devalues the work of social workers to the extent that they qualify for food stamps, but hedge fund managers, who do nothing but play money games with smoke and mirrors, could buy an island with the money they make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tammy
Workers earning minimum wage make up less than 5% of the workforce while people receiving food assistance make up 20% of the population in those states mentioned in the article. It seems there might be something more at work here.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Here's a great article with a great infographic in Forbes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoff...their-support/
We all have different opinions about how, why and where we need help, but I agree with the author:
Quote:
I would venture to bet that all of the more than 47 million people receiving SNAP would rather be “back on their feet.” But in a country with more food than anywhere else in the world, it is morally reprehensible to not help those who need it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...ic-assistance/
Maybe there are a lot of Walmarts in Oregon.
It is my understanding that students (university, community college) are eligible for food stamps in Oregon. I believe Oregon has one of the lowest eligibility thresholds than other states so someone who qualifies in Oregon would likely not qualify in another state.
ahh, ok, I figured it was something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reyes
This doesn't seem applicable in Oregon, unless it's after tax income (yes the poor definitely pay federal income taxes if they don't have kids). Oregon minimum wage is supposedly 9.25 an hour. So a rough calculation shows for even in Feb: 9.25 * 40 * 4 = $1480, so it will exceed the threshold, as will the California minimum wage of $9 an hour.Quote:
Also, as it says in the article, you are eligible for food stamps if you earn $1265/month. You can work a minimum wage job 40 hours a week full time and not even get to that point. That's the working poor. So until the minimum wage is raised, looks like we'll just have to keep subsidizing people whose employers don't want to give their employees a living wage, but who then want to call food stamp recipients lazy bums who soak the taxpayers.
well the minimum wage workers in Oregon may not qualify, but real unemployment could make up for it, it's higher than the official unemployment rate.Quote:
Workers earning minimum wage make up less than 5% of the workforce while people receiving food assistance make up 20% of the population in those states mentioned in the article. It seems there might be something more at work here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I would suggest that not only are these two ideas not mutually exclusive, they are, in fact, simply different heads of the same creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Re: Oregon. My experience is only second hand and anecdotal at that, but DD2 was in Oregon a good part of last year and relayed some stories. She was working on an organic farm with a group of other free spirits. The farm owner had cancer so all the kids went up to help him harvest, sell at the farmer's market, fix things up, etc. They slept in the house and the barn and ate out of the gardens, but didn't actually take any money for their services. Because of that every one of them qualified for food assistance. This group was pretty reasonable and only put two of them (out of 12) into the system so they could buy a few things that didn't come from the farm, but its easy to see how they could have milked the system. The way they explained it I don't think there was a time limit or many, if any, qualifications that needed to be met to stay in the system which would explain the popularity of the program.
By contrast... One of the groups we do a little bit with helps victims of domestic violence get out of that situation and back to being more independent. Those folks often leave with little more than the clothes on their backs so they can really use some help. Here in Nebraska it is fairly simple to get a one time, emergency EBT card and that first round is usually fairly generous (a stock the pantry kind of boost). Beyond that, however, the paperwork to remain in the program is daunting. Its a little simpler in the WIC program if a woman has an infant, but for single people or single parents with older kids there are a lot of hoops to jump through.
I'm not sure I even have an opinion of which way is "better". If anything I would probably lean toward the more requirement intensive approach. Worth noting, the only truly needy folks I've seen not qualify missed out because of their own failures to complete paperwork, nothing else. I don't have any problem with the tax payers who fund such programs wanting to know that the help is going to someone who really needs it. I did tell DD2 that, if I were an Oregon taxpayer, I might not be thrilled with a group of middle class hippie kids slipping in regardless of how altruistic the mission that left them cash poor.
It looks like you can earn significantly more than minimum wage in Oregon and still qualify because it is 185% of the poverty line, which for a family of 3 is $719/week according to this chart.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
https://oregonhunger.org/applying-for-snap
Working on an organic farm, and they need food stampps? That, has the same irony as someone I know of who devotes all their spare time to vegetable gardening, but then goes down the street to eat at a restaurant that charges $100 for a meal! Ha.
There is an irony in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Packy
Somewhat similarly, my DD's first job was when she got a job as an AmeriCorp worker working for an anti-hunger group (the one I linked to in an earlier post). As a very low-paid AmeriCorp worker, she was eligible for food stamps. This was a job working in New York, and she made less than $27,000. She lived in some horrendous co-housing situations, ONLY used mass transport, even when it compromised her safety (of course I learn of this after the fact) and she counted every penny. Then she learned she could get food stamps, and took advantage of them. I do not begrudge her getting those food stamps, and I wouldn't' begrudge hippies working urban farms either. But that's just me. I think teaching young people to go after work that is socially responsible and a benefit to the community, despite its pathetic pay, is worth a few taxpayer dollars. I'm pretty sure a lot more tax money is wasted in pork barrels.
Our kids all came together to support the farmer (who only one of them had ever met). He was 74 and had lung cancer. Spent all his money on treatments so didn't have enough to pay migrant workers to harvest his crops. Without the harvest income he couldn't have made the mortgage payment. One of DD2's buddies got the idea that several of them should mobilize to help this guy out, so they did. None of them ever thought about what was in it for them. I was a pretty proud papa if the truth be known.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I'm not sure where they found out about the food stamps program, but they used it for things that they didn't get from the farm. Peanut butter, tuna, flour and sugar, milk, etc. Being teens and 20s I'm sure they probably snuck in a bag of chips or a Mtn. Dew at some time, but the point is that they were trying to help someone else out and didn't abuse the system so I don't really have a problem with their decision. Its not exactly the model that would save western society, but its an above average start.
DW and I spend a good part of our time in our garden and a good part of our entertainment budget going out to eat. I don't see anything ironic about that at all. We just enjoy both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Packy
I'd be proud of my kids helping out a farmer in that circumstance. More mature than most adults I know. ;)
Agreed - I think it's primarily to placate people enough to avoid the labor movement issues they had a century ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I think people would be surprised at the number of retirees on food stamps too.
I know two retirees whose main income is their Social Security which is $1,100/month. They are each single households and in AZ each qualified for $15/month in food stamps. yes, $15. So are "they on food stamps"? yes. But they are obviously still having to use a great deal of their Soc Sec for food.
Or it could be seen as a way for the wealthy to keep the poor huddled masses just happy enough that they don't revolt against a system they perceive to be unfair. Probably far less expensive than hiring all the cops they'd need to squash an 'American spring'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But they're moving to the latter solution anyway, it might not be smart but then probably neither are the powers that be. Afterall what's growing more the police state or giving out benefits? I'm going with the police state. To the extent benefits like food stamps grow at all, I think it's quite independent of any desire to increase benefits - mostly the worsening economy in that case I'd say (looked at over decade plus periods). I think there's no shortage of police state apparatus and money spent on it: prisons, incarceration, militarized police etc..Quote:
Or it could be seen as a way for the wealthy to keep the poor huddled masses just happy enough that they don't revolt against a system they perceive to be unfair. Probably far less expensive than hiring all the cops they'd need to squash an 'American spring'.
And cutting schools, pre school, head start and being sure to incarcerate the poor....All of a sudden heroin is an epidemic because middle class and rich kids are getting arrested and we can't have THAT! The New Jim Crow is an excellent book. It says things much better than I.
I assign\ The New Jim Crow in a university class I teach. I also assign a critique written by James Forman Jr. (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...ext=fss_papers) It is good to read them together (as side information, here is information on Forman's father http://web.stanford.edu/~ccarson/articles/left_2.htm).Quote:
Originally Posted by nswef