Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomasz | Hacker News Reader

While there is nothing inherently wrong with experiments like that, there should be no mistake that "taking the SNAP challenge" does not give you a deep understanding about the condition of being poor. Living by $4.50 a day for a week with a seven figure bank account, a nice car and a house in an upscale neighborhood makes you a tourist.

I just don't understand the rationale behind this. It's not like there is a big misunderstanding about the poor living an awesome life. What's missing is the slightest shred of empathy for them.

           But she didn't understand,
        she just smiled and held my hand.
           Rent a flat above a shop,
          cut your hair and get a job.
       Smoke some fags and play some pool,
        pretend you never went to school.
      But still you'll never get it right,
      cos when you're laid in bed at night,
        watching roaches climb the wall,
    if you call your Dad he could stop it all.
    -- Pulp, Common People

View on HN

I agree with you to the extent that this article could include more about what you wwrote, but "As I said in my initial post, you won't hear me claim that my experiences from the upcoming week represent an authentic representation of food insecurity in America." And yes, I even think that, despite appearances, it is a bit disrespectful. But I also think there's value to the post:

He actually fails to create a properly nutritious and tasty diet. And writes about it. And that's without additional constraints, in "easy" mode. I think that's very illustrative.

From the article: "As I said in my initial post, you won't hear me claim that my experiences from the upcoming week represent an authentic representation of food insecurity in America. My goal is merely to help bring awareness to the issue and spark deeper conversations about food insecurity and possible solutions..."

As I said, I don't think the problem is awareness. People know that a life on food stamps is not funny, it's just that they couldn't care less.

See the various conversations in other threads on this post from people who do indeed believe that life on food stamps is perfectly pleasant and reasonably-provisioned...

You haven't been paying attention.

"Also my goal is to bring as much attention to Panera Bread as possible."

Unfortunately, that's not true. There are a lot of people out there who genuinely think that the poor in the Western world are simply lazy, and that they could manage perfectly well in similar circumstances.

I've seen quite a few of those comments on HN. I recall one commenter, even, claiming that the obesity problem in the US proved that welfare payments were generous if not over-generous, because "our poor eat like gluttons".

The more evidence against idiotic viewpoints like that which accumulates through experiments like this, the better.

It's entirely the case in the UK.

The poor are derided by politicians and the media alike.

However, there has been a growing campaign regarding the 'cost of living crisis'.

Food, shelter, water and transport are beyond the means of too many people. For no good reason. Inflation is not a market effect. It is nations purposefully stealing from the poorest.

Out of curiosity, what evidence (if any) would persuade you that welfare payments are sufficiently generous, or that the American poor are lazy?

(I might be the commenter you are referring to, I certainly take both the positions you've described. I've observed that I get an extremely emotional reaction when I cite statistics on this topic and I'm curious what evidence would be sufficiently persuasive.)

Evidence that it was possible using reasonable efforts and with reasonable implicit levels of education for everyone on welfare to maintain a healthy diet would be a good start.

Note that "healthy diet" means more than "enough calories".

I suspect his opinions are not falsifiable, if that's what you were hoping for.

You should have read the post. Both your concerns are covered. Not only does he acknowledge that his challenge is not representative of the reality people have to go through, but he clearly spells out his reasoning.

"As I said in my initial post, you won't hear me claim that my experiences from the upcoming week represent an authentic representation of food insecurity in America. My goal is merely to help bring awareness to the issue and spark deeper conversations about food insecurity and possible solutions – discussions that organizations like Feeding America are driving every day."

Quite. I am put in mind of a 90s New Zealand politician who started an effort to live on the newly-reduced social welfare payments, but called it off a few days in because one of her kids got sick.

There is hidden cost in being poor: You don't have a car, or money for gas - so you don't have access to cheaper stores. Simple as that. Did he account for it?

He does mention in another post: "To be clear, I don’t mean to trivialize anyone else’s experience or claim mine as an authentic representation of what food insecurity looks like."

I'm pretty sure he's well aware of all the luxuries he has at his disposal that others who rely on food stamps don't. He's not shooting for an authentic representation because he just can't. Even if he were to give away all of his wealth, he'd still have many luxuries (such as friends and family to look after him) that some folks in dire situations don't.

This isn't to say that there isn't insight to be gained from running this experiment, though.

Well, the supermarket he is shopping at is located in Dorchester, which has some of the poorest neighborhoods in Boston.

False. 70% of the poor own a car and 25% own two cars.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf

Why was this downvoted?

It serves a specific, seemingly opposed purpose: to prove that there exist food choices that allow people to subsist on SNAP. This anecdote will be cited in the future for showing that there are 'many choices' for food

> Living by $4.50 a day for a week with a seven figure bank account

In Ron's case, you're probably off a couple or three of those bank figgers.

The poor can't eat empathy.

Go start a company and then make some good jobs - pay your customer service people well and you will reap it in.

Apparently, when a a CEO does it, it's news worthy, while for an actual poor person, its just everyday. In the end though, it's a good thing, he has the ability to attract people's attention on the matter which may lead to positive change, a resource that poor people don't have.

Apparently, when a a CEO does it, it's news worthy, while for an actual poor person, its just everyday.

Well yes, that's pretty much the definition of news: reporting uncommon events. "You never read about a plane that did not crash".

Sport events must be really uncommon then.

They sure try to make it look that way.

Investigative reporting is a thing.

I wouldn't call that part of "the news", even if they're both journalism. And people do write such reports about poor people, so the observation wouldn't make much sense.

Exactly. This is akin to trying to experience the loss of a child by leaving your kid for a week. Might be a good experience none the less, but don't kid yourself.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6149/976

Science 30 August 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6149 pp. 976-980 DOI: 10.1126/science.1238041 Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function

You can't simulate being broke. Actually being broke is only part of it. The larger part is not knowing when, if ever, it'll end, and therefore having to plan your life around being perennially skint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com