Tao Economics Forum

Full Version: 13 Alabama counties saw 85 percent drop in food stamp participation after work requir
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Thirteen previously exempted Alabama counties saw an 85 percent drop in food stamp participation after work requirements were put in place on Jan. 1, according to the Alabama Department of Human Resources.

Each recipient receives about $126 a month in benefits.

Nationwide, there are about 44 million people receiving SNAP benefits at a cost of about $71 billion. The Trump administration has vowed to cut the food stamp rolls over the next decade.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06...5_per.html
There's a plan!
(06-07-2017, 09:10 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]There's a plan!

The question is: "did Alabama do anything to help these adults get a job before dropping them off SNAP benefits?"

You could eliminate 100% of SNAP beneficiaries by simply ending the program.  The problem would be that private food charities would be overwhelmed with food requests and people would be wandering the streets starving either since they are homeless and can't afford both food and rent or shoplifting food from supermarkets.

Maine, when they put their program in place, also had a program to help those dropping out of the program get a job.  Naturally, helping people get a job was more expensive than giving them $126/month in SNAP benefits, so net-net, Maine actually spent more money in the short run and recouped their costs in the long run from wage taxes and sales taxes.
(06-07-2017, 09:29 AM)ModestProposals Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:10 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]There's a plan!

The question is: "did Alabama do anything to help these adults get a job before dropping them off SNAP benefits?"
...............


you read the "work requirement" wrong, or actually, only read the headline and NOT the "requirement".

they do NOT HAVE to work, they only have to work OR SIGN UP FOR WORK
now if they're not gonna bother signing up to take a job when one comes along, just what the heck are we giving them free food for???????
(06-07-2017, 01:58 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:29 AM)ModestProposals Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:10 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]There's a plan!

The question is: "did Alabama do anything to help these adults get a job before dropping them off SNAP benefits?"
...............


you read the "work requirement" wrong, or actually, only read the headline and NOT the "requirement".

they do NOT HAVE to work, they only have to work OR SIGN UP FOR WORK
now if they're not gonna bother signing up to take a job when one comes along, just what the heck are we giving them free food for???????
I reread the article.  It said:

The counties - Greene, Hale, Perry, Dallas, Lowndes, Wilcox, Monroe, Conecuh, Clarke, Washington, Choctaw, Sumter and Barbour - had been exempt from a change that limited able-bodied adults without dependents to three months of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits within a three-year time frame unless they were working or participating in an approved training program.

Question now becomes:  "who pays for an approved training program?"
(06-07-2017, 09:29 AM)ModestProposals Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:10 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]There's a plan!

The question is: "did Alabama do anything to help these adults get a job before dropping them off SNAP benefits?"

No

The real question is: Did they do anything themselves to get a job?
(06-08-2017, 07:26 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:29 AM)ModestProposals Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-07-2017, 09:10 AM)andrew_o Wrote: [ -> ]There's a plan!

The question is: "did Alabama do anything to help these adults get a job before dropping them off SNAP benefits?"

No

The real question is: Did they do anything themselves to get a job?



PERFECT Illustration

thanks Andrew!!!!!
This is not exactly rocket science. Increasing the "cost" or receiving a "good" will always reduce overall demand.

I am very much against absolutely free with no strings attached benefits on demand. There is now and will always be infinite demand for things with zero cost.

Given the finite supply of literally every good and service, you have two choices (or a combination of the two): limit supply, or increase costs. Arguably, the fairest way to approach this in such matters is to increase non-monetary costs, which is exactly what was done in this case.

And this is without even addressing the second order effects of "no strings attached" policies. Human behaviour being what it is, an individual will change its behaviour to maximize returns while expending the minimum effort. In short, if you reward people for doing literally nothing, you will unsurprisingly find a lot of people doing nothing.