341–350 of 494 posts
One of those things I wish could out last this virus. We'd be so much better off as a society if we could at least keep our people fed. The comments in here seem a little negative currently but this is great news. Think of all the people in NYC who didn't have access to clean and regular food before the virus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I cook for my family so I have some idea what goes into each meal. Typical dinner will be rice, some protein, and some vegetables. By far the most expensive bit is the protein. Our staple is chicken thighs which can be had for $2-3/lb. We use maybe half a pound per person (generous estimate), so the protein cost is on the order $6/meal. The rice costs next to nothing, maybe 20c. And the vegetables might be a…
Thank you for posting this. Long ago I investigated how cheaply I could eat. I researched nutritional needs, created a spreadsheet, priced items at the supermarket. It was easy to keep myself well fed at a cost far below standard assistance levels. When I encountered poor people complaining their money ran out, I discovered that some were hostile to the very ideas of thrift, self reliance, or any principals of stoici…
Also FWIW I'm not saying it's easy to be poor. In many domains it's extremely painful and difficult. But I think we can acknowledge that while also pointing out that meeting food needs using $500 of SNAP benefits is an eminently doable challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's enough? We have a grocery budget of $500 a month for a family of 5. That's $3.30 per person per day.
How much is your restaurant and eating out budget? Or are you saying that your entire family gets 100% of it's dietary needs from your $500/month grocery budget? If so, that's impressive and you should share you shopping lists somewhere... I know I'd be interested in seeing that :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you envisioning some mechanism to prevent people from having filet mignon and caviar every night for dinner? I'm not poor, but my grocery purchases would change a lot if I didn't have to pay for it myself.
Nope; just assuming that the number of people taking advantage of this would be a power-law distribution rather than a gaussian, and so the economics would still work out in favor, even with people "abusing the system." That, and perhaps the dollar-cost of your "free" food purchases would be taken into account in calculating your tax bracket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We'd be so much better off as a society if we could at least keep our people fed. this is not a statement you can make without qualifying. it is either a useless tautology (society would be better if society were better), or an actual argument about policy and procedures (if wealthier people paid more taxes, we could feed poorer people and society would be better). of course, no one says the second thing when that's…
Yeah, you're right. The USA right now is in a good state on the matter of social policy, and I don't see any way it could be improved. Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more. Imagine the chaos that would ensue... In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the current problem in the USA is that market is not free enough. Trump should definitely lower taxes on higher incomes and cut services. This can only push innov…
>Especially if it takes taxing the "rich" more.
im not sure why you put rich in quotes since that's not what I said. however, the majority of tax revenue already comes from businesses and high-income tax brackets. what do you think is a "fair" share, since theyre already footing the bill?
> Imagine the chaos that would ensue...
youre being sarcastic, but im not sure why. American capitalism has helped catapult the world into a standard of living previously unimagined. most socialist experiments have ended with millions of dead, and the current socialist successes are either brutally authoritarian and/or 1/100 the size of USA.
> This can only push innovation!
if you want to stop using technology that was gained in some part by the "needless" (whatever that means) suffering of others, then good luck; you've got quite the task ahead of you.
> That would certainly make for a better society!
im making good-faith arguments including first-principles. you respond with false dichotomys, straw men, putting words in my mouth, sarcasm, and generally being a piece of shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that." Have you noticed that it is only American government (o…
I am not necessarily saying the government is doomed to failure, I just want to remind people that when they believe the govt. intervening will solve problems that they often are the cause of many problems as well. As for your response that only the American government is highly despised by it is citizens I have to disagree with that, in fact the one universal feature I've found across all internet commentators, admi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So where’s the disconnect here? SNAP is widely available, so we need to investigate the gap.
57 billion into 40 million people = $1425. That's without any overhead. Say there was no overhead, that's $3.90 a day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope; just assuming that the number of people taking advantage of this would be a power-law distribution rather than a gaussian, and so the economics would still work out in favor, even with people "abusing the system." That, and perhaps the dollar-cost of your "free" food purchases would be taken into account in calculating your tax bracket.
maybe I'm just too cynical, but I have a hard time believing it would work out that way. the difference between the cheapest and most expensive brand of pasta is at least 4x. why wouldn't you buy the nicest brand every time? if the tax bracket adjustments had any bite, you would end up with poor families owing more tax than they earned income. this ends up basically equivalent to means testing anyway.
I mean... they'd be told that that would happen in advance. Wouldn't that then serve as an incentive to avoid making a pattern of taking home the more-expensive food? (They could still do it rarely, though. A one-time $50 bump in spending isn't going to affect your taxes.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many things have become " just-in-time", production, so much that depends upon things ticking along and any bump like this, sure does start toppeling many a dominio.
I think over the coming weeks, we're going to see just how much of the "essential" part of the economy depends on the "non-essential" part. For example, a comment in one of these postings on HN was talking about how the manufacture of essential supplies was continuing and robust (even I've made a similar comment some time ago). But... ok... how much of the logistics capacity, the capacity of hauling those essential p…