Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

schools.nyc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 494 posts

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#381

Post by DonCopal »

Footkerchief wrote: post #374
DonCopal wrote: post #373

How are they going to check that you don't go multiple times? Also, how are you going to prove how many children you have? So a father goes first and says "give me meals for my 5 kids", then a mother goes a bit later and says "meals for my 7 kids, please" and then a mother-in-law if she lives with them can pick up some more.

Why would someone go multiple times? Because they're still hungry? To resell it to someone who... can also get free food?

To stock upon food to have available after the pandemic. Over many days you could amass quite a lot.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#382

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#383

Post by [deleted] »

tren-hard wrote: post #18

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.

[deleted]

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#384

Post by machiaweliczny »

bosie wrote: post #43
nvahalik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without universal basic income, we are totally f@cked UBI isn't a savior. UBI still requires that people, you know, pay taxes. If 30-40% of people have no income and are completely dependent upon the government, then you have slavery 2.0 (3.0?) and you will end up creating a worse, classed society than you had before: the ones receiving vs. those who pay for what everyone else gets. Or the government just prints mo…

Regarding your first paragraph: At least in a lot of european countries, income tax isn't even the most lucrative tax for the government. Additionally quite a few working people aren't paying income tax. When you can deduct 13k from your income each year, not many people working for a supermarket are paying income taxes for example. Example, Amazon and VW are creating high revenue in Austria and Germany yet their tax…

Its true that VAT is prime source od government funding in EU but products need to be made somehow. So taxing scheme doesn't matters that much. UBI is distribution pattern, so there needs to be something to distribute in first place.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#385

Post by derefr »

harimau777 wrote: post #357
leetcrew wrote: post #313

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.

Presumably we could come up with some sort of middle ground policy. For example, there could be certain foods that are excluded from the system or maybe only certain products are included. Or perhaps different products could use up more of a person's "food credits".

I think you wouldn't need to actually do any work to get this effect. Consider what happens if tons of people suddenly decides to take home a particular "fancy" food for free. The government pays the grocery store, but the grocery store also runs out of the food and buys more from its supplier. This is driving up demand for the fancy food. Now the fancy food is going to get more expensive, even though people are getting it "for free."

If you take my sibling comment about tax effects into account, this means that, as people over-consume a "free" food, and its price rises, they're effectively making larger and larger "purchases" which will have an effect on their taxes.

On the other hand, if it turns out that the food was only expensive because few people were buying it, in a sort of vicious circle—then when everyone buys it, and forces demand up, it'll force supply up, too, and the food will get cheaper for everyone, not just for people who get it "for free."

For example, if it turns out that we only weren't factory-farming caviar because of the low demand, but it's perfectly possible to do so, then we'll just turn into a society that farms and eats a lot of cheap caviar. No market distortion; just "unlocking" market efficiencies we couldn't previously reach, because the demand side didn't previously have the dollars to vote with. Everybody wins!

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#386

Post by uterm »

munificent wrote: post #321
Justsignedup wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point. It should. If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) a lot of people will have a HUGE improvement in their day-to-day happiness. This is one of those obvious huge moral positives we can do. The only "down side" is there will never be fear of starvation. Edit: The one progress I can see in a society is when we can basically…

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 receiving unemployment in the current crisis and I think you will see a similar reaction to this food assistance program in New York.

Second, your example of a restaurant taking bags of rice is clearly not an issue with SNAP benefits as they exist in every state, nor is it a possible issue with the program in New York, since they are giving out full meals.

In fact, I expect that the system being trialed in New York will actually solve the issue of people selling or trading away their SNAP benefits, since poor folks just above the cutoff for snap, who would still benefit from food assistance, can just go and get a free meal themselves, rather than trading or buying discounted food from someone selling their SNAP benefits.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#387

Post by rapind »

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…

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.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#388

Post by sovnade »

im3w1l wrote: post #339
crazygringo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no different from lining up at the supermarket. In theory everyone's supposed to be lining up 6 feet apart. In practice... well, NYC grocery store aisles are some of the narrowest corridors you'll ever encounter in your life, and there often isn't even space to line up for a cashier. So social distancing in supermarkets is a total joke. But the alternative is starving to death, since the grocery delivery service…

Exposed every day picking up meals vs exposed every other week in the supermarket.

Do you realize most people in NY have very limited storage space in their kitchens, no cars, and only buy what they can carry in 1-2 bags at a time because of that?

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#389

Post by TuringNYC »

mcherm wrote: post #151
jsonne wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of 2018 40 million Americans received more than 57 billion dollars in SNAP. It seems like largely the US has been and will continue to keep people fed. Note also that this is just 1 Federal program and doesn't mention the multitude of other state level and city level programs that exist as well as private charities, religious organizations, etc. Please note I am not saying the system is perfect, shouldn't be expan…

The cost of the program is not a very good way of evaluating it. the number of people it feeds and how well it does so would be a much better criterion.

Totally agreed. But for those who feel the need to justify costs -- instead of looking at the good it does -- consider the capitalist benefits:

- Hungry people are not productive to the economy

- Hungry people are more likely to be sick and burden the healthcare system

- Hungry people, if desperate enough, might steal from you

- Hungry children do not learn as well, and become a future burden society needs to carry

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#390

Post by rubidium »

rabidrat wrote: post #225
TulliusCicero wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is somewhat misleadingly worded: it makes it sound like what they receive each month is 17*4 = $68. The actual average per month is $127/recipient. Arguably this is still insufficient, though.

yeah they get 31*4, but they can only make it 17 days with that. I doubt I could make it even 17 days with only $127.

I ate plenty well as a grad student on $120 a month. If that’s $127/person that’s plenty for just food. If that’s $127 for a family of 3 that’d be rough.
Post reply on HN