Speaking seriously about the Food Stamp Challenge, its heart is in the right place, but the government does not, in fact, ask anyone to try living on an average food stamp grant of $21 per person. Food stamps are awarded on a sliding scale related to your income. If you are so poor that you literally have no cash beyond your food stamps to spend on eating, your grant will be much more than $80 a month.
A better exercise is to attempt to live on the government's thrifty food plan, which is what it uses to calculate the poverty level. It's pretty spartan, but it's more than $21 for a week. Since poor families getting food stamps typically spend about 125% of the thrifty food budget, you'll have a decent idea of what their food lives involve.
Just took a look at that plan. Sounds delicious. What family of four wouldn't want to eat 10 pounds of potatoes every week?
I knew a guy that claimed to eat on $20 per week. I never saw him actually eat anything so it may be true.
What family of four wouldn't want to eat 10 pounds of potatoes every week?
That's roughly one medium potato per person per day, so it could be a lot worse.
I think we can safely file this topic alongside Race among things you should simply not write about anymore, Megan. I'm sure you don't agree, but that just means I'm right, according to your system of logic.
I think we can safely file this topic alongside Race among things you should simply not write about anymore, Megan.
On the contrary, we need more posts on the topic to further expose the widespread myth--a myth especially popular among gullible liberals--that hunger and lack of access to food is a serious problem in America. Maybe it was a generation or two ago, but that just isn't true today.
I feed my (middle class) family on the amount designated by the Thrifty Food Plan. With a few non-Plan splurges per year. WE EAT WELL; everyone is happy with what we eat, it's healthy, tasty, and has plenty of calories.
What it does take, which I don't see too many younger people doing(and clearly not the more liberal people who've been commenting on this issue in this blog, even though I'm a liberal myself and totally support food stamps)is planning ahead each week and spending some (not a lot of) time cooking.
Why would anyone think that cereal, milk, toast, and juice is an inadequate breakfast? why would they think sandwiches and fruit was not an OK lunch? how terrible can it be to have chicken, then chicken casserole, then chicken soup? Fruits and vegetables are expensive if you go for the gourmet strawberries and pre-peeled carrots; they're not if you go for apples, frozen peas, and squash.
The pre-packaged food industry has gotten our expectations for convenience very high. I guess there's no way to turn back the clock, but let's be real. NO ONE WILL SUFFER ON A FOOD STAMP BUDGET UNLESS THEY'RE BUYING THE WRONG STUFF.
The maximum food stamp benefit is $154/month for individuals, or $138.50/month for an individual in a family of four. You can only get that benefit if you meet very strict income guidelines, e.g., if you get the maximum SSI (disability) benefit of $620/month, it eats into your food stamp benefit significantly.
This equates to about $1.50-.71/meal per person.
The average working individual spends $92/week, or $4.30 per meal, on groceries (eat-in) almost three times the food stamp maximum benefit.
Thanks for posting that, Megan. You might add a direct link to the Thrifty Food Plan itself (here in Table ES-1, beginning on page 11 of the pdf.) It's pretty interesting to compare the suggested quantities of various foods to my family's weekly grocery cart. Supposedly, I can feed the five of us on about $132 per week. (I would think I'd get more because I'm a nursing mother, but the plan doesn't make a special allowance for that. Too bad.)
This is pretty close to what I spend at the grocery store every week -- but it doesn't include our (not from the store) meat, milk, and eggs, nor any food we eat at restaurants.
MBW, just curious, what's your source for the $92/week on groceries number? I'm wondering if it doesn't include nonfood items (shampoo, detergent, paper products) as well?
The maximum food stamp benefit is $154/month for individuals, or $138.50/month for an individual in a family of four. You can only get that benefit if you meet very strict income guidelines
As Megan points out, food stamps are not intended to cover the entire food budget for the average recipient. And $154/month is about the cost of the thrifty food plan for a prime-age adult male.
But we don't really need to debate the issue at the dollar-cost level, anyway. There is abundant evidence that malnutrition (meaning inadequate nutrition, rather than just poor dietary habits) in America is rare. Where it does occur, the cause is most likely to be something like mental illness or parental irresponsibility, not the lack of access to food.
But all those prime-age adult males spending $154 a month on food are fat. No, wait. It's only the prime -age adult males spending $154 in food stamps who are fat. No, wait. It's only the ones spending $21 a month in food stamps who are fat. Because the less you're allowed to spend in food stamps the fatter you are. No, wait. No, yes. That's it. The less you can spend the fatter you are. Does anyone question this?
Rice is cheap, particularly in large sacks, as are flour and pasta. Most basic ingredients are cheap. For the non-vegan, enough milk or cheese to boost your protein intake is manageable. I prefer cheese because I can make a very good pizza for very little money. (Buy yeast in the pound package, or at least the jar.) I really like quinoa. A variety of grains makes up for a lack of meat. For the lago-rodento-vegetarians, the occasional rabbit or squirrel will be a real treat. My primary snack is popcorn. On such a diet, I remained healthy while maintaining my weight, which requires 3000+ calories per day. Nowadays I live in greater luxury, but I doubt I exceed $100/month on food. I'll have to keep reciepts and check.
A bit of extra convenience or an occasional meal out raises costs rapidly.
Food is cheap. Meals require a lot more money or time and effort.
But the only reason to give people food, rather than cash that they might, if they desired, use to buy food, is that they are starving and need food right away.
No it isn't. Another good reason to give people food is to make them fatter. By plumping our nation's poor people--that is, by giving them a nice big basket of sweet, delicious food--we can show the world that we have the fattest poor people on earth; that never in all of history have the poor of a single nation ever been fatter. In the process we can prove Megan's point; feeding poor people is counterproductive. Only by depriving poor people completely and utterly of food will we ever solve the obesity problem since, as we all know from the scientific evidence, the less you're able eat the fatter you are.
Rice is cheap, particularly in large sacks, as are flour and pasta.
You don't understand at all. Poor people only buy Velveeta cheese, potato chips and fruit roll-ups. This is proven by scientific evidence.
You are, however, correct in saying that for the average poor person who also happens to be a lago-rodento-vegetarian, the occasional squirrel will be a real treat.
I was on Megan's side of this argument, but observerfrommars's clever use of sarcasm has now persuaded me that she is clearly incorrect.
Give that man a job writing speeches for our next president, Dennis Kucinich.
I was on Megan's side of this argument, but observerfrommars's clever use of sarcasm has now persuaded me that she is clearly incorrect.
If I can convince just one person out of fewer than fourteen that less money = fatter, I feel I've done my job as a scientist and statistician. Thanks!
Bearing, if you're a mother on food stamps, you'd also qualify for WIC, which would either give you vouchers for specific foods (staples like milk, formula, juice, eggs, and peanut butter) or the actual food itself in some states. They have an extra food allowance for nursing mothers, too.
(Mildly OT: WIC is a big supporter of breastfeeding -- they do things like give out free pumps. The cost savings of nursing over formula are significant, on the order of $100/month.)
I just went to my Sam's club and spent $300 for two weeks worth of groceries for my family of 5. I'll spend another $10-15 on milk as it runs out. We'll eat plenty of fresh fruit, organic baby spinach, great flash-frozen veggies, pasta, chicken, fish, and 90% lean ground beef. I spend a lot less than some of my friends because of choices I make. I could, and sometimes do, spend more.
What's the argument?
h.
I just went to my Sam's club and spent $300 for two weeks worth of groceries for my family of 5.
This amounts to $30 per week per person. Clearly you are all obese.
Heather, some friends of mine have a saying: "Being poor is expensive." If you're rich (or even just middle-class), you can afford a car and a discount club membership and probably have a decent-sized home with storage space for two weeks worth of groceries. (Or more. My roommates and I used to go to BJ's and buy toilet paper is big packs that lasted us for months.)
If you're living in a tiny apartment and can't afford a car and are stuck shopping at your crappy local supermarket that actually charges more than the stores in comfortable middle-class neighborhoods and has refrigerators and freezers that occasionally break down so you're not even certain the milk you buy isn't spoiled (my local supermarket used to be like that), then that's a different matter.
So whatever the argument is, it's got little or nothing to do with whether you, with the resources you've got access to, can shop more cheaply than people who don't have access to those resources.
The operating ideology of food welfare is that one should be attemptig to get off the welfare by gainful employment, hence the amounts being subsidized are minimalist. If the food welfare is subsidized at maximum calorie intakes, human nature will result in increased numbers of people opting to 'free ride,' avoiding searching for work in order to take advantage of subsidized food.
This is not callousness for the truly needy; instead, it's an effort to provide some modicum of subsidy, but not so much that the sytem is overwhelmed by those who want to exploit taxpayers' generosity.
The amounts of subsidy are the results of political compromise between those wanting full food costs covered for the needy, and those wanting personal responsibility not to be squashed by the 'nanny state' ethic. "Minimalist" is the pragamtic result, and as always, pragmatism is lost upon the ideological 'true believer,' whether Left or Right, who believes 'principle' overrides striking a balance between idealism and reality.
What family of four wouldn't want to eat 10 pounds of potatoes every week?
That's about one McDonald's medium fries every other day per family member, right? There are probably a lot of American families doing that, at least.
Sarcasm reigns here, I see, because the facts can't be argued. BTW, Avram, I read somewhere that 70% of the poor in the United States own and operate a car. I think the source was the US Census Bureau, but I could be wrong. If you work on it hard enough, you can hone your sample size down to that one single individual in the entire country whose needs are being completely ignored and then design a delightful system for everyone else around that one person.
If you're living in a tiny apartment and can't afford a car and are stuck shopping at your crappy local supermarket that actually charges more than the stores in comfortable middle-class neighborhoods and has refrigerators and freezers that occasionally break down so you're not even certain the milk you buy isn't spoiled (my local supermarket used to be like that), then that's a different matter.
That's very true. Made worse by the fact that apparently Wal-Marts are allowed to bring cheaper prices and larger stores to middle-class suburbs, but not to poor areas, where they're prevented by law from doing so. Of course, Target and especially Costco don't even try to locate in poor areas or target poor people as customers at all.
>Wal-Marts are allowed to bring cheaper prices and larger stores to middle-class suburbs, but not to poor areas, where they're prevented by law from doing so. Of course, Target and especially Costco don't even try to locate in poor areas or target poor people as customers at all.
There's a BJ's in South Philly literally across the street from a Shop-Rite supermarket (which has very reasonable prices). Every time I go to the Shop-Rite it looks like a diabetes bomb has been detonated. I haven't been to the BJ's (I go to Costco) so I don't know about the relative fitness of its patrons. Point is that the comparatively poor residents of SP do have the option of buying in bulk, if they can swing the investment in the BJ's membership, that is.
A Duoist mentions a point that previously has gone unmentioned in this and the previous threads-more moral hazard is created the higher the subsidies are. There is no real way around this but to create a sliding scale that does not cover all food costs for all but the most disabled.
However, I am intrigued enough to see how little I can spend on food during a month's time. Presently, I eat out a lot- for lunch every day at work, and for dinner 4 to 5 times a month. I even eat out for breakfast 4 to 5 times a month. That will have to end.
When I was a grad student in the late 80s and early 90s, I spent less than $20/week on food for personal preparation on the northside of Chicago, none of which was subsidized (cafeterias etc.) This involved eating lots of soups, sandwiches, and canned fruits. It was boring, but not unhealthful.
Avram,
If you're living in a tiny apartment and can't afford a car and are stuck shopping at your crappy local supermarket that actually charges more than the stores in comfortable middle-class neighborhoods and has refrigerators and freezers that occasionally break down so you're not even certain the milk you buy isn't spoiled (my local supermarket used to be like that), then that's a different matter.
The average housing space of Americans the government classifies as poor is 439 sq ft per person. This is more than the average for most citizens of western Europe (not just most poor Europeans, but most Europeans, period.) Almost half of poor American households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1969 and is in good repair.
73% of poor American households own a car or truck. Almost a third own two or more cars or trucks.
The latest bleeding-heart liberal meme here about the poor seems to be various versions of "but the poor can't buy cheap, healthy food because there are no decent grocery stores where they live." I keep seeing this assertion, but no one has produced any evidence to support it. Is there any?
Mixner: I've lived most of my life out in rural areas, where everyone has to own a car, and everyone shops at pretty much the same stores because that's all there is. And it's amazing what you can find at very low prices if you look - and even more amazing that stuff no better is often selling right next to it at twice the price. (E.g., Sara Lee white bread - as bland and nutritionally null as possible - at about $1.70/lb right next to store-brand bread at $0.89/lb.)
So I don't know much about the cities, but it's likely true that you won't find the huge chain supermarkets where middle-class people are accustomed to shop in the worst neighborhoods. Their design makes shoplifting too easy, and their size is apt to make robbers think they could get a big haul there. And you probably won't find Walmarts, because the limousine liberals running large cities seem to think that somehow having those jobs and the opportunity to shop at good prices is to the disadvantage of their poor... But I've been told that there are small ethnic grocery stores in the bad parts of the city, with very low prices on staple items, although an Anglo-German Yankee might me might need to adjust my ideas of what the basic staples are.
Since none of the people making this "The poor don't have access to decent grocery stores" assertion have produced one iota of evidence to support their claim, I thought I'd do a bit of googling on it myself.
Here is a USDA study that--surprise, surprise--contradicts their claims. Food Stamp Participants’ Access to Food Retailers. Among its principal findings:
1. Most low-income households use supermarkets as their main type of food store.
2. Approximately one-third of low-income households usually shop for food within a mile of where they live.
3. Depending on the specific criterion used, between 80 and 90 percent of the low-income households in the sample indicated that they regarded the store they go to as either “good” or “excellent.”
4. Among respondents who shopped within their neighborhoods, more than 85 percent characterized themselves as either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the neighborhood shopping opportunities.
Based on these findings, the assertion that the poor don't have access to decent food stores appears to be yet another falsehood.
These type of discussions are always interesting. There are always a few people who try to convince us that the FS/Thrifty food plan is somehow inadequate, and then there are a lot of other people who cannot be convinced because they themselves live on such a budget.
My wife and I do actually spend a little more than the "thrifty plan," but we live in a high cost area and we eat great. We could get down quite easily to the thifty level if we needed to (for example, I could give up my diet soda habit), but we have plenty of money so we don't worry about it.
markm's point about ethnic markets is a very good one. We shop regularly in an Asian market in an urban area, and we've noticed that the savvier locals on food assistance often shop there too. Good produce and other staples (beans/rice/tofu/canned goods) can be purchased for very reasonable prices; even nonessentials like candies and snacks are cheap by my standards.
Yancey: Ah yes, grad school. There is no better training ground for a lifetime ability to eat on basically no money. As a grad student, I would have considered the "Thrifty Food Plan" impossibly luxurious, although I eat more expensively now. Beans, rice, eggs, whatever veggies are in season, and small quantities of sale-priced meat go a very long way.
I really don't know where most of you live, but in NY the maximum weekly income for an individual to qualify for food stamps is under $100.00. I can speak from experience on this one.
I am lucky enough to volunteer at a food co-op. They give me a 17% discount on my food. I also am able to get free food the day the product "sell by" date expires.
The most foolish thing I hear is that education will free you from poverty. I am educated and went into debt to do it. Too bad most of the entry level engineering and science jobs went overseas.