We also disagree on what contributes to the problem and how to solve the various problems.
Here’s the problem: the husband is in his late 50’s without a college degree. There is no work here for him. Other than odd job/handy man stuff that involves physical labor that is starting to be problematic for a man approaching 60. It’s a serious problem in this area, a lack of work for men too young to retire but too old to be considered “young” any more.
He can’t get training in the trades around here - they have a cut-off of 45 for apprenticeship programs, I know that because I looked into it when I was laid off. I was deemed too old for that, too.
They don’t have money for college/trade school/vocational training. No one is giving that training away for free.
Yes, it would be 30 days of having a place to sleep and having the kids with them, but while that solves the short term problem it doesn’t solve the long term ones. And it’s not just them, there are many families in this area in similar straits. If the grandparents were more reasonable this wouldn’t be such an issue, they’d move in with them (I have coworkers where multiple generations and family units are under one roof. It’s not perfect, but it’s a solution)
That leaves the problem of “where do you find a place willing to rent to someone for one month”. The other side of this equation are the landlords - they don’t want to rent to someone in that situation because, with the uncertain income, it doesn’t make business sense to do so.
I’ll check in with her and see what’s up with her - I keep hoping something will come their way and they’ll get a break.
Well, here is a perfect example then. What do YOU think can be done to help people in this situation? What policies, programs, or other do you think would be effective in helping people such as this?
If you have HBO, there’s a documentary called “Motel Kids of Orange County”, which investigates poverty through families who live at motels. What often happens is these families continually transition between renting somewhere, living in a motel, and living in their car or some other place. It just depends on how much money they have at the time. It shows how the reality of living in poverty is that there is very little stability. Their housing situation can change on a monthly basis. Utilities or internet may come and go. Their ties to the community can change as housing or job situations change. One bright aspect was the community had created a special school for these kids so they could keep going to the same class even as they moved around to different school districts.
When my family eats our healthiest we spend about 2x the max food stamp allowance for our household size on groceries. That is literally as much as some people make per month working fulltime. Yes, I know most people aren’t working full-time on minimum wage but a lot do and a lot more only slightly higher ($10-12/hr or so).
I don’t buy the complete generalization of “healthy foods are always more expensive.” Sometimes the comparisons don’t make sense, and a healthy menu can be built around inexpensive fresh foods. A lot of time it’s stocking up on the staples that can be expensive (sort of like having a downpayment on a house or car instead of renting an apartment or making payments at a buy here pay here used car lot), and that is a problem. When I go shopping I like to see the register total barely move when I scan the produce and then rapidly rise as the packaged foods go across, but that’s an oversimplification, too.
I would also add that the diet almost everyone I know does best on (for weight) is high fat and low carb. So, no mac n cheese, but meat adds up. That said, there’s some sort of compromise that works alright with lower calories and lower meat consumption.
It is always good to remember that I know virtually nothing of a person’s life just from standing behind them at a checkout line.
You might see me using what looks like an EBT card, but it is actually the card that the state uses to pay unemployment. You might see me driving a nice car and texting on an iPhone.
What you don’t know is that when I was unemployed, the state pulled a major CF, and couldn’t manage to actually pay the already-approved unemployment benefit for the entire 6 month benefit duration…then they finally managed to get their act together and pay it all in one lump sum. By then I was pretty good at scraping-by, so there was still a decent pile of money in the account when I finally found a job.
Now unemployment has no strings attached: You can spend it like cash on hookers and blow if you so choose. I worry, though, that some low-information conservative will manage to obtain information on how unemployment benefits are used, so over a couple of years I have been slowly draining that account when I am in what those sorts would consider “an appropriate store” buying groceries. Sometimes I use another credit card if the person behind me is wearing a MAGA hat, or shows other signs of being a clueless busybody.
It’s also that “junk food is cheaper per calorie” sort of misses the point. The amount of calories you can buy with $X is not typically the limiting factor.
If $X only buys a maintenance level of calories, and buying any lower-calorie foods would cause them to fall below maintenance level, then it would make sense to buy only the foods that give the most calories without considering the other micronutrients. But $X buys a level of calories well above maintenance level - otherwise they wouldn’t be obese. Therefore it makes sense to spend the money that goes to foods that push the caloric load above maintenance on foods that are healthier even though - indeed, because - it reduces your calories overall.
You can argue that a junk food diet tastes better, or it’s easier, or you’re living on the street and your cardboard box doesn’t have a stove, or whatever. But you can’t argue that a junk food diet is necessary to provide all the calories you need if it supplies more calories than you need. Especially if the extra calories are at the expense of vitamins and protein and fiber and other factors that enhance health instead of detracting from it.
I know upper class people who are obese. I know middle class people who are obese. I know lower class/“poor” people who are obese. And based on my observations, they’re all obese for the exact same reason: they love to consume large quantities of calorie-laden and fat-laden foods. They eats lots of fried foods, pastries, snacks, cheese, lard, sugar, etc. You can give them healthy food for free, and they’ll just throw it in the trash.
And that’s why the arguments put forth by the apologists for poor, obese people do not make sense:
“Many poor people are obese because they don’t know how to cook.” This implies they would not be obese if they knew how to cook. But the fact that so many middle class people are also obese proves this is wrong.
“Many poor people are obese because they don’t have time to cook.” This implies they would not be obese if they had time to cook. But it’s a fact many poor people have a lot of free time on their hands.
“Many poor people are obese because high-calorie food is cheap.” This implies they would not be obese if they could afford to buy “healthy” food. But the fact that so many middle class people are also obese proves this is wrong, since it can be assumed middle class people can afford healthy food. In addition, this hypothesis may not be true at all. Poultry, beans, rice, and potatoes are healthy and cheap.
“Many poor people are obese because they don’t have access to healthy food.” This implies they would not be obese if they had access to healthy food. But the fact that so many middle class people are also obese proves this is wrong, since it can be assumed middle class people have access to healthy food.
I think soda is terrible but I wouldn’t seek to limit it in that way. Maybe I say that because the diet I eat might not be typical but works for me and is healthful. If you base it on a flawed food pyramid or something else like WIC or whatever the “government cheese” days were called it ends up being some sort of agricultural corporate welfare program (well, I suppose it already is) where wrong judgments are made on the quality of the food and certain foods are forced on people that they won’t eat or aren’t really healthy. Some people will say the same thing about steak or seafood, but I’d rather people use food stamps on lobster than soda, but who decides and based on what criteria? You’ll probably end up with the peanut butter lobby (or someone) forcing the consumption of 10 pounds a day of peanut butter as the healthy protein base of every diet or some kind of cheese or something. Or force people to eat pasta when they look and feel sickly on high carbs. If the money is all the same, I’ll spend all mine on steak and butter, thanks. And someone else can buy bread and Pepsi.
True, but I think the trend is toward more of them being that way. And many companies leech on society by using welfare to subsidize their operation and low wages to create more and more of those jobs. So, IMHO some of the shame towards EBT users is a little misguided when things are set up that way. I saw the stat earlier that most impoverished don’t work. Fair enough, but I also see thousands of jobs and job ads for positions that working full-time qualify for Medicaid and sometimes food stamps. And it’s not because those programs are so generous, and certainly not as generous as welfare given to billionaires.
^ This is my friend/coworker’s situation. She and her husband rotate between hotel and car (basically save up enough for a few nights at a hotel where they sleep better and can get really cleaned up, then back into the car for awhile)
And that’s why their kids are with the grandparents, to give them a level of stability the adults don’t have. It’s far from ideal, of course, because it splits the family but the parents are able to spend time daily or nearly so with the kids (though it gets to be a problem withe the father/husband and the grandparents - they literally make him wait on the porch half the time), the kids are housed and have a stable situation, can go to the same school, etc.
Yes, well, we all know there are come people who love to eat crap. Often, the same people will do “comfort eating” so when stressed they eat even more crap.
OK, you’re conflating “some” with “all”. SOME poor people are obese because they don’t know how to cook, or more accurately, their lack of cooking skills are a contributing factor.
OF COURSE someone who comfort eats is still going to be obese if they apply their cooking skills to cookies, cakes, and candy making rather than making healthy meals. That applies regardless of income.
And some don’t. So, again, this is a contributing factor for SOME poor people, not all poor people. Don’t think of “poor people” as a uniform mass of people because they aren’t.
As has been pointed out in many of these thread, a diet of beans, rice, and potatoes is NOT healthy for many diabetics. Keeping a diabetic healthy on a budget costs more money, as I know from experience. Unless you want more complications/hospitalizations for diabetic poor people they have to eat food that is less carb and more protein and fat. Now, yes, you can still do that on a budget but it will cost more than just beans and rice and it does take a little more thought and skill.
Does that apply to ALL poor people? Of course not. But that is part of the problem.
It also helps if the poor folks can garden. That would be a problem for someone working two jobs, as gardening does require time and effort, but as pointed out not all poor people have two jobs. When I was underemployed I spent more time on my garden, which helped keep us fed, including the diabetic in the family. It is one solution for SOME people, not all people.
Again, stop conflating “some” with “all”. SOME poor people do not have access to healthy food, SOME poor people (me, for example) will eat healthier if they have access to better food. That still leaves SOME poor people who won’t touch a vegetable even if you held a gun to their head.
First, I think we have to understand a few basic notions:
Poverty is multi-factoral. There is no “one” reason for poverty. Reducing poverty requires tackling all the factors.
Poor people are not all alike. There are people such as myself who will and do climb out of poverty (I am, in fact, off all government assistance at this point and building my savings and retirement again, yay me) with minimal aid and others who are just a mess and likely will never be fully functional. You can reduce poverty, you can not eliminate it.
You need to have a balance between making help accessible and eliminating fraud. Of course you go after an root out fraud, and prosecute the criminal, but people making actual mistakes should not be harshly penalized.
Housing
We need to have decent, low cost housing. The notion that Section 8 housing in my area has a ten year waiting list is obscene. That is not helpful. We need low-cost, safe housing for individuals, which means things like studio apartments, room rentals in homes, and even things like the old SRO’s. That means insisting that multi-unit buildings have set-asides for supported residents (sure, make sure they can pass a background check), that a private individual renting out a “mother-in-law” unit or the like doesn’t have their tax rate go up (in my area, renting out a room to a college student doubles your property tax, because it’s considered a commercial use of the land). We need to make sure that occupancy requirements don’t cause problems, like dictating how many people per square foot or per bedroom - for awhile when I was a kid we had four kids in one bedroom, we survived. We can’t base housing for the bottom of the socio-economic ladder on what the upper class views as the norm. We need to base housing codes on actual safety and NOT bias or attempts to exclude the “undesirable” from housing.
Yes, we may in some instances need to provide rent assistance to poor families. These efforts should be fully funded and if the waiting list gets ridiculous then they need to be expanded because clearly there is a need. Then we need to double-down on other reasons why people are in that situation, but meanwhile, folks need a roof over their heads.
We need to have a place to house people who can’t pass a credit check, background check, and the like. No one wants to live next door to a child molester but if we aren’t going to summarily execute them they need to live somewhere. No one wants to live next door to a drug addict, gang-banger (current or former), or schizophrenic, either, but they have to live somewhere and I’d argue that “under the freeway viaduct” or “in a van down by the river” aren’t really solutions that are in society’s interests.
Food
We actually do a decent job here, in that almost no one in the US actually starves. There’s certainly room for improvement, but I don’t accept the argument of “some people won’t eat a vegetable”. Yes, SOME people are like that, but increasing access to healthier/higher quality foods to those who will eat it is a good thing.
Access to Dental Care
I have too many coworkers whose teeth are literally rotting. Grey, black, broken. It’s hard to eat healthy vegetables and the like when it is physically painful to chew. Also harder to get past a job interview with a gap-toothed multi-colored smile.
My state started making dental care part of expanded medicaid a couple years ago. My dentist is one of the ones that took on that patient load. A LOT of people who hadn’t been to the dentist in decades showed up in his office, and of course a lot of them were walking dental disasters. But folks like my friend’s husband were able to get treatment (and in his case dentures) and are no longer eating mush. Some of my co-workers are eating things like corn on the cob again and fresh apples for the first time in years. Yes, some people weren’t eating fresh food not because they don’t like it but because of pain and fear of their teeth breaking off if they bite an apple. Does that apply to anyone refusing vegees? No, but where it does we can actually fix that problem, we just need to have the will to do so.
Jobs
This is not such a problem as it used to be a few years ago, but while people are employed they aren’t always earning enough to pay the bills. A fundamental source of poverty is not enough money coming into the household. But because I’m running low on time right now I’ll have to tackle this one later.
I don’t think it’s bad; I just don’t know where you draw the line. In my state soda (maybe some other “junk food”, not sure, but I think just soft drinks) is taxed and “food” isn’t. So maybe if a state had the freedom and wanted to administer theirs somewhere along those lines it might make sense. Not sure how the hot food works but that does seem strange. Some stores even chill their hot prepared foods for the purpose of making them available for SNAP and put stickers on it. So, someone can’t buy a bucket of hot chicken but they can pay the same price for it cold.
I have a lot of sympathy for people in poverty, but I would also support SNAP not being used for soda–sugared or diet. Soda really isn’t healthy for anyone, but people who have a good diet and medical resources can mitigate the effects. If someone is struggling to get enough food, they should not be consuming soda. Whatever money is spent on soda should be spent on something with more nutritional value.
That is strange, because they are often a good deal. Is it any prepared food? Like deli sandwiches and stuff?
I will agree with everything you said if you can agree that two of the “factors” here are poor decision making and lack of personal responsibility.
Also, do you know why SNAP cannot be used for hot rotisserie chickens at the grocery store? As another poster said, they are a great price usually, and one of the best deals in any store.
Hot food. Some grocery stores will even take leftover hot food and put it in a cold case and put a sticker that says “Cold EBT eligible.” So you can buy subs and sandwiches (which aren’t really a good deal but very convenient) and potato salad on EBT, or salad bar (but not “hot bar”) or a take and bake pizza, but not hot chicken or potatoes or whatever.
No. My comment was more about people who would start at soda and then say you can’t eat steak, you have to eat spam if you want meat. Or no seafood, but pressed lunchmeat is great, and so on. There are a lot of those people. Sort of the same who support the expired bologna and stale bread for prisoners things and consider EBT recipients the same class as prisoners.