Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker • Hacker News Board

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#401

Post by umvi » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

organsnyder wrote: post #377

umvi wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are getting free food and shelter during a crisis, it's one thing. But if they are getting it 24/7/365 year after year, it's a red flag that they aren't self-reliant. The solution is not to pour more money into ensuring their needs are met but to examine why they are not able to sustain themselves. Maybe they have no skills because they dropped out of high school. Maybe they are in and out of prison and can…

The way our welfare system is structured in the United States, maintaining access to food and shelter is a huge amount of work and stress. Developing skills and gaining employment is difficult in the best of times—yet we insist on making it even harder.

Well then we may need to restructure in order to create a more effective system. Society does not benefit from people who are completely reliant on the government to meet basic needs.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#402

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

fires10 wrote: post #326

thanksgiving wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I'm sure you meant those in need, and not every American I personally despise means testing. There has been so much hatred spewed over "welfare queen" that I am amazed we still do means testing and we have pulled it forward to things like the New York state Excelsior program (college education for first-time college students) and even for the $1,200 COVID-19 stimulus. It is very sad. We don't less means testing…

I despise means testing as well. I also believe the moral hazard argument is over blown most of the time. I would like to see a guaranteed employer of last resort that pays enough for someone to live. This employer (federal agency) could adapt the work that is done to a situation. Provide opportunities for retraining and so forth. This could also provide the psychological safety many are in need of and reduce despera…

[deleted]

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#403

Post by greenyoda » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

elwell wrote: post #59

This is something that already existed I think.

The food pickup program existed for public school students ever since the schools were closed. Now it's being extended to all NYC residents.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#404

Post by epicureanideal » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

rapind wrote: post #387

fires10 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I despise means testing as well. I also believe the moral hazard argument is over blown most of the time. I would like to see a guaranteed employer of last resort that pays enough for someone to live. This employer (federal agency) could adapt the work that is done to a situation. Provide opportunities for retraining and so forth. This could also provide the psychological safety many are in need of and reduce despera…

Agreed. "Job guarantee" program. There's a write-up here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_guarantee I also like the idea of UBI combined with a flat tax (losing progressive taxation) for it's simplicity, but imagine all the tax lawyers and accountants that would be out of a job.

It seems like a Job Guarantee program would be something that both Democrats and Republicans could support. I'm surprised it hasn't been done already (other than in the Great Depression).

Questions...

1. How would that program handle people who were unwilling to work? Possible answer off the top of my head: maybe they get sent home or terminated from the program for a period of time, and the pay for the "Job Guarantee" job would need to be somewhat more desirable than the benefits received for not working at all (assuming the person is capable of work).

2. How would the program prevent managers with personal bias against particular people on the Job Guarantee program dismissing them so they are sent home to receive the lower paying "able bodied but unwilling to work" pay? Possible solution: Any dismissal is time limited (or exponential, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, then in yearly increments), and also the first 3-4 steps would simply involve a transfer to a different manager. To reduce the likelihood of bias, managers should be representative of the general population in any potentially important characteristics such as gender, race, and also political orientation (Democrat, Republican, or other).

3. What would prevent minimum wage employees from moving to the government jobs program instead? (I'm anticipating a potential Republican question.) Possible answer: the pay would be lower.

4. Does this create any kind of perverse incentives for the government or corporations? "Well, we don't need to care about access to college, or jobs in the US, because everyone has a guaranteed (below minimum wage) job".

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#405

Post by identity0 » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

thekevan wrote: post #398

Dammit, New York City is not all of New York! A "New Yorker" is anyone who lives in the state, despite the claims that NYC lays on it. I'm a New Yorker as New York is the state a live and a 7 hour drive from NYC. Not that I was expecting the meals for myself, but the title would lead me to believe people in my community could be helped.

You should be able to tell the difference between a New Yorker living in NYC and a New Yorker living in NY state using the context. How do you expect 3 meals to be given to anyone living in NY state? Will they ship the meals using the postal service? Or is there a network of people giving out free food in every little town in the state? Neither one is realistic.

Also, the website is literally "nyc.gov".

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#406

Post by not2b » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

uterm wrote: post #386

munificent wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this general goal, but it is much more complex than it seems from the outset. Any program at this scale has to be thoughtful of the larger societal, moral, and cultural consequences it brings with it. Just looking at free food, a fundamental question is: Is this expected to be a baseline that all people receive and then people buy additional /better food, or is supposed to be an option where many/most do…

It seems like you are arguing against a couple of straw men here. First off, no one is saying that we should give 100% of citizens foie gras and caviar. While I understand your point about there being some stigma attached to funding and/or receiving food assistance, I think it would be lessened if it were freely available to everyone at their discretion. People (rich and poor alike) have certainly had no qualms about…

Trying to means test these kinds of programs just adds administration costs. "But a rich person might get some of the food!". So what, that rich person is paying taxes to support the program. Make it simple.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#407

Post by nojvek » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #209

yalogin wrote: post #13

Wonder how they make the food? It’s a huge operation to undertake. A logistical nightmare. How can they estimate how many people will show up and how much to cook? Kudos to them to do this though.

It's literally doing what they (school cafeterias) already were doing. It would be harder logistically to have shut it down than doing what they're doing now, having to lay off workers and cancel food contracts. The cafeterias have an existing capacity and are likely just producing the same amounts they usually do. They're able to give some away because it's not likely that every student shows up everyday (or at all)…

Sure, they had the system in place but the fact that so many people are fed is impressive (for free).

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#408

Post by pgt » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

Wow, this is amazing.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#409

Post by luckylion » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

risaacs99 wrote: post #352

kryogen1c wrote: post #314

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…

On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial. We can apply creativity to solving the world's problems without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy of the abandonment of capitalism completely. Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned. We need to be less cynical and be willi…

> On the other hand, the second and third order consequences to providing a stronger social safety net to people might be highly beneficial.

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm in Germany. We have UBI for all intents and purposes, you get an apartment, utilities, TV, a washing machine etc, health insurance and money for food and stuff. Yes, you are expected to take a job if you can find one, but you're not pushed too hard if you half-ass it and don't find any.

We're still looking for those highly beneficial consequences. We have plenty of intergenerational poverty and our social mobility is worse than in the US.

It's apparently not that simple, unfortunately.

> Not every social experiment is a one-way door that cannot be tweaked, improved or abandoned.

It pretty much is though. It's very, very, very hard to turn back the clock on benefits once people have gotten used to it.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#410

Post by avianlyric » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #366

blunte wrote: post #252

I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.

If people are getting free food and shelter during a crisis, it's one thing. But if they are getting it 24/7/365 year after year, it's a red flag that they aren't self-reliant. The solution is not to pour more money into ensuring their needs are met but to examine why they are not able to sustain themselves. Maybe they have no skills because they dropped out of high school. Maybe they are in and out of prison and can…

I don’t think meeting people’s needs and helping them to develop are mutually exclusive.

It’s perfectly fair we say that we should provide everyone with their basic needs as a safety net that prevents people from starving. Then building on top of that to give people the support they need to better themselves and reduce the need to rely on outside support.

Sure some people will abuse the system. But condemning the majority just to punish the minority feels a little petty.