Oregon in top 10% of states giving most food stamps

[jp1]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...ic-assistance/

Maybe there are a lot of Walmarts in Oregon.

[Reyes]

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.

[iris lilies]

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.

[ApatheticNoMore]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gregg]

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.

I would suggest that not only are these two ideas not mutually exclusive, they are, in fact, simply different heads of the same creature.

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.

[jp1]

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.



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.

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.

https://oregonhunger.org/applying-for-snap

[Packy]

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.

[catherine]

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.

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.

[Gregg]

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.

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.

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.

[Gregg]

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!

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.