Hipsters on food stamps
salon.com
salon.com
Nope.
1. Food stamps are an excellent economic stimulus. That money goes back into the local economy extremely quickly. On economic grounds alone, I'd support expansion of this form of assistance. Better still, these programs usually don't have a finite number of "slots" or a fixed allotment. Even if you don't think someone is worthy of assistance, it's not like they are taking from someone more worthy of assistance.
2. The article seems to take issue with the age of the recipients. Do young people--particularly young people who held up their end of "get educated, get ahead" bargain who are now unemployed in the Great Recession--not need food? As a person who feels like he caught the last rung of the opportunity ladder, I feel terrible for people 5-10 years younger than me. The least we can do is make sure they get through this with their health intact. If nothing else, it's good business sense.
3. The article also takes issue with what these people are buying / cooking. I disagree that many of the items listed in this article are luxury goods. If people can stretch their benefits (see #1), eat nutritious and veggie-rich diet, AND do it with some panache, I'm supposed to be angry? Pfft.
In short, this article is rubbish and tries to be inflammatory. Worst yet, it runs the risk of manufacturing outrage at a really good program.
If you qualify for food assistance, I highly encourage you take it and use it to enrich your nutrition. I have literally needed to talk people, who were scraping by and eating poorly, into taking assistance because they didn't want to be "a burden on anyone."
So... you are missing the reason why the author expects you to be (and many people are) outraged.
It's class.
The thing is? Listen, for a moment, to the people who oppose college as a tradeschool. (that is, everyone who makes arguments about how going to college makes you a more broadminded person, and that you should go even if it doesn't increase your market value.)
The value provided by College is at least partially a class marker. I mean, depending on degree, it may also be a trade school, but it's also a class marker. Having the resources to go to school for another 4 years, even if it doesn't increase your market value, while I was working (both earning money then, and increasing my market value for the rest of my career) implies that you come from more money than I do. (well, at any rate, it implies that you don't think money is very important, a view that is quite unhealthy for people who don't have an adequate supply.)
The thing is? for whatever reason, the 'class marker' of college is no longer enough, by itself, to get you a job. Either college has been weakened as a class marker by all the poor people going through on loans, the economy is so bad that there aren't enough jobs where the minimum requirement is being middle class, or class just doesn't matter as much as it used to. (I mean, I don't know which of those is true... but clearly, something changed. it used to be that one could expect employment even after getting a degree in underwater basket weaving. This is clearly no longer the case.)
The idea here is that if you went to college, well, you should be middle class, right? and middle-class people don't need food assistance.
That, and the aforementioned hipsters are eating like middle-class people, too. On food stamps. which is also going to do bad things to traditional assumptions about class.
Maybe it's just that social class and money are less tightly coupled now? I say that because I didn't go to college that no matter how much money I make? I'll never be middle class. And you know what? I own a deep fryer. Not a big one for turkeys that you use once a year; a little counter-top unit for cooking frozen battered cheese sticks.
The question of whether a four year degree is worthwhile is an interesting one. When I graduated it certainly was. And those four years were pretty hard financially for me. When I was a kid, my parents qualified for, but did not accept (boo), assistance. Apart from a small amount of money from my parents my first semester, my state school edumacation was funded by loans, grants, scholarships, and my ability to make 'nix machines do things. I can point to major turning points in my life where not having a college degree would have been a non-starter. (I subsequently went to grad school to enter a field where I make significantly less money, but that was a matter of conscience and a different story.)
So I feel it's hard to blame the 20-something college-educated person (I've never met any underwater basket weavers), who grew up seeing slightly older people get ahead by going to college... for going to college. We could take the putative approach: "You should have predicted a long-lasting recession and seen a coming phase-shift in the labor market." But I think that's silly.
The fact remains that there are a lot of people out of work right now, and that people have to eat. I see both trends continuing. Wasn't there just a posting a day or so ago here "confessions of a job destroyer" or something? Software developers are putting people out of work. That's good, in so far as we find new and better things for those people to do.
Finally, as for fried battered cheese sticks (mmmm), I'm pissed that I can't find the correct Futurama Youtube clip. You'll have to make due with the quote I was looking for: "Heck, you're never too rich to enjoy a free turkey dog."
I was just pointing out what I think the reason for outrage was.
(to be clear, middle-class people have nothing against subsidies... they just prefer their subsidies in the form of tax loopholes. The outrage here is that culturally middle-class (but financially lower-class) people were taking subsidies intended for culturally lower-class people, and using those subsidies in the way you'd expect a culturally middle-class person to use them.)
[1]I scare quote 'buck' there because I'm talking about the total cost of the subsidy; not just the monetary cost, but also the market distortion cost. both should be considered before we decide a subsidy is worth it.
Thank you for sounding a calm and interesting analysis. There are a lot of people out there who refuse to take food assistance on the grounds you mention (how stigmatized it is in out society, it makes you a 'leech', etc.). I too end up talking to people, trying to convince them that it's _okay_ to get help when you're down on your luck.
"Homeless, broke, heading to Oregon"