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

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#391

Post by nradov » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

maccard wrote: post #323

beerandt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if a family qualifies for snap, their kids almost always automatically qualify for free school meals already, in addition to snap.

which is great when schools are open. this also means that parents aren't going to go hungry, and that neither will go hungry over the summer/prolonged school closures right now.

Many school districts do offer supplemental feeding programs during breaks, and our local district is still distributing free lunches to students in need. But this isn't universal across the country and a lot of people do fall through the gaps.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#392

Post by mattkrause » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #274

dmoy wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data shows median net worth around $100k? Does that include a house? Median household savings discluding a house, at retirement age, is just barely $100k (that is, enough to support retirement income above social security of a wopping ~$5k/year).

Federal reserve including all assets and subtracting all debts. If you owe 300k on your house that's worth 400k, you might have a liquidity problem but you aren't poor.

"Liquidating" a house is slow and relatively expensive. You're probably losing a decent chunk of that $100k if done in a rush (and of course, you need somewhere else to live too).

Another chunk of that $100k is probably tied up in a car, which has the same problems.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#393

Post by jessriedel » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

alexgodin wrote: post #118

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 average SNAP recipient receives about $4 a day and sees their balance run out after just 17 days. This is not enough.

Why would we expect the average of 40M SNAP recipients, over 10% of the US population, have their entire food budget provided by the government?

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#394

Post by greenyoda » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

billfruit wrote: post #195

How does the logistics of it work out, they operate an industrial scale kitchen is and ships food to various outlets. If it is prepared seperately at different outlets, then how they ensuring quality and standardization. May not be distributing MRE / Refugee type rations be easier ?

They're using the existing food service facilities in the NYC public schools, which are available since the schools are closed. The only difference is that they're packaging the food for pickup/takeout.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#395

Post by fyp » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #242

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think SNAP is supposed to always cover 100% of food expenses. If you're near the cutoff point for benefits, you get some allowance, but you're expected to cover some of the food cost from your income. You would of course use your SNAP benefits first, since they are not fungible, so it is not surprising that you would run out before the end of the month. This does not mean that such households are unable to af…

Okay now try to eat like an actual human being and make it work for $500 over 30 days. The dollar amount itself is fine, but SNAP should be supplemented with basic commodities. Beans, rice, flour, sugar. The prices for these when purchased at the volume of the federal government drop to near nothing.

I lived on $200/month in SF (single person) and I definitely didn't "eat like an actual human being". But the problem was definitely me and not that it wasn't possible.

Usually in those financial conditions you also know your time is better spent elsewhere. An extra hour per day practicing for interviews is much better use of your time than cooking. So you do the most efficient thing possible, which is just throw whatever is cheapest per lb into a slow cooker and eat it for the rest of the week. Most stuff is pretty disgusting after a few days in the fridge.

It's probably possible do meal prep cheap/fast/delicious, but I definitely never learned how. Tips appreciated!

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#396

Post by Kye » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

jcampbell1 wrote: post #365

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…

I’d rather see a $15 minimum wage, and an EITC run in reverse, where anyone that hires someone who is struggling gets a $10 credit for every hour paid.

This seems to be a difference in philosophy. I see your comment and, if I read you right, see a desire to support people by encouraging them to participate in capitalism by paying companies to hire them.

My view is different: public money should go to public good. I don't think that good is served by interfering with markets. If they need $10/hour to justify hiring someone, what is that person going to do for those hours? I think public good is served by training and paying people to deal with collective action problems: failing/at-risk infrastructure, poverty, health care in places with little or no access to it under the private health care and insurance systems, and things like that.

Private companies can be part of that, but the initiative has to be led by the public and the people they elect to lead them, not private interests.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#397

Post by gruez » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

bosie wrote: post #301

gruez wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At least in a lot of european countries, income tax isn't even the most lucrative tax for the government. Can you provide a few examples? What other revenue streams do those governments have?

In Austria government collects more VAT than it does from income tax. Then you have property tax, car tax (an additional 20% to the already 20% VAT), drugs tax (alcohol, beer, cigarettes ...), gas/fuel tax, flight tax, capital gains tax and probably many more i am forgetting now. those are just consumer taxes though

So going back to your earlier comment:

>>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.

>Regarding your first paragraph: At least in a lot of european countries, income tax isn't even the most lucrative tax for the government.

I don't see how shifting your taxes from an income tax to a consumption tax changes anything. Rather than getting taxed to hell on your income, you're getting taxed to hell whenever you try to spend it.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#398

Post by thekevan » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

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.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#399

Post by leetcrew » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #380

leetcrew wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you're really willing to allow that outcome, then your proposal is just an implicit benefit limit that's a bit harder to calculate. how is that different from / better than saying "here's $xxx to feed your family this month; budget appropriately"?

Again, because if you give someone $xxx, they feel compelled to use it, and therefore to put $xxx less of their own money into the economy. Here, people don't have any money or food stamps "burning a hole in their pocket." They just have their own money, and an unlimited line of credit for grocery stores that would "come due" in the form of taxes at the end of the year (but which would only end up costing them anythi…

okay, I think I see your point now. it's less of a no-limit credit card paid by uncle sam and more of a contribution matching / loan combo. I do think the tax interaction is overly convoluted, but I see the core of something viable here. people can get extra purchasing power when they need it, but they still have at least a little skin in the game to discourage abuse.

I will say I'm not a big fan of using shame to gate off this benefit. my intuition is that shame alone is not enough to stop most people from seeing a way to stretch their grocery budget, if they can use it to buy anything they want. if it is effective, then that's only in proportion to how dehumanizing the experience of using it is, which is also kind of shitty.

Re: Three free meals available daily for any New Yorker

#400

Post by heylook » Fri, Apr 03, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

DonCopal wrote: post #381

Footkerchief wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Looking at the menus, it seems like they're generally serving quite low-cost meals. I'm curious what the parameters of the cost-benefit would need to be for it to make economic sense. How many people would need to "cheat" for how many meals per day to make up for the operational cost of implementing a given safeguard? How much food could a person stockpile before it starts going bad more quickly than they can make some other use of it?