Are There No Prisons?

by hilzoy

"1) The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not."

-- Megan McArdle, from a post called "Why Not Food Stamps?"

***

"How Many People Lived in Food-Insecure Households?

• In 2006, 35.5 million people lived in food-insecure households, including 12.6 million children.
• Of these individuals, 7.7 million adults and 3.4 million children lived in households with very low food security.
• Children’s food security is affected to some extent in most food-insecure households (see the ERS report, Food Assistance Research Brief—Food Insecurity in Households With Children). However, children are usually protected from substantial reductions in food intake even in households with very low food security. In 2006, 430,000 children (0.6 percent of the Nation’s children) lived in households with very low food security among children."

-- USDA: Food Security in the United States: Conditions and Trends

***

"'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

'Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'

'They are. Still,' returned the gentleman,' I wish I could say they were not.'

'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

'Both very busy, sir.'

'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'

'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

'You wish to be anonymous?'

'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'

'But you might know it,' observed the gentleman.

'It's not my business,' Scrooge returned. 'It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'"

-- Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

***

Megan McArdle could have looked up the figures on food insecurity before announcing its nonexistence. As the gentleman said to Scrooge, she might have known it -- and a lot more easily than Scrooge, who didn't have the internet at his disposal. And it's certainly more her business than it was Scrooge's, even on Scrooge's narrow understanding of that term, since she undertook to write about it.

Though personally, I've always agreed with Marley's ghost:

"'Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. 'Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!'"

Comments

[idlemind]

There are, of course, no homeless vets, either.

[Eric Martin]

Megan McArdle could have looked up the figures on food insecurity before announcing its nonexistence.

I admit to being less and less impressed with her output. She never seems to take the extra step of teasing out her ideas - "looking it up" in the present example.

Reading her posts is like reading someone making beginner level/basic errors over and over again, no matter the subject matter discussed.

Not that erring is any great sin. But coupled with defensiveness, a lack of honest reckoning with opposing views and a seeming unwillingness to rectify the flawed method going forward, it makes for a persistent shallowness of thought.

And that's a shame.

[KCinDC]

Exactly what I was thinking of, idlemind.

[Carleton Wu]

Obesity is a problem for the poor in America... food insufficiency is not

It's not like there's a single poor person (who then couldn't reasonably suffer from both problems). This is as illogical as claiming that, because opiate addition is a problem in a community, ergo there can be no problem with a lack of pain control meds at the local ER.

I admit that she may not have intended to do this illogical lumping process, but I can't find another reason for her inclusion of the obesity problem.

[Bill]

'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink’
-Dickens from a different time, quoted in the article

“Food insecurity” sounds scary. Here’s what it really means:

“Low food security” means no reduction in food intake but a periodic reduction in food variety.

“Very low food security” means that at least once in a year, food intake was reduced due to financial pressures. 4% of American households suffered from “very low food security” in 2006.

I suffered from chronic and recurring “very low food security” in college; it’s not that bad and one can get through it.

In America-2008, two hours of minimum wage work purchases 50 pounds of bulk rice (500+ servings, 80,000+ kilocalories), or enough energy to comfortably keep a man going for two months. Carrots, celery, and chicken are economical ways to add variety. I’ve got a backup plan, passed down from my grandfather, that includes rabbits, squirrels, and fish. Thing is, you’ve got to cook it.

[Jesurgislac]

You've also got to be able to live somewhere you can store fifty pounds of rice without it being stolen, being eaten by rats, mice, or other vermin, getting wet, getting mouldy... and you've got to be able to get to a place where you can buy fifty pounds of bulk rice cheap and then carry it home to where you live, too, of course.

I love it when people whose sole experience of anything remotely resembling poverty was when they were in college, tell really poor people that it wasn't that bad for them so it can't be that bad for you.

[Carleton Wu]

Bill,
1.6oz of rice is not much of a serving. From your own numbers, that's 160kCal per 'serving'. If we generously interpret "well over two months" to mean 80 days, you're suggesting that 1000kCal a day is enough to "comfortably keep a man going".
I suggest to you that this is perhaps not the meaning of "comfortably" that Im normally used to. "barely" might have been a better choice of words.

Furthermore
-poor people don't have easy access to bulk food suppliers, so they don't get bulk rates. Their access to fresh vegetables etc is also frequently limited.
-a diet of just white rice is not just unappetizing, it is profoundly bad for one's health, particularly for children.
-there are not many rabbits in areas of urban blight. I would not recommend eating the fish caught in the East River, either, or suggest feeding them to children. Hunting is frowned upon in urban areas in any case.

Finally, I admit to a bit of confusion- you claim to have gone hungry many times in the past, but also point out that 2 hours a week would've kept you comfortably rolling in rice-calories. Were you very stupid in the past, or was rice much more expensive back in the day?

[KCinDC]

And if you get really hard up, Bill, you can always do something to get sent to Guantanamo Bay for the lemon chicken.

[russell]

I suffered from chronic and recurring “very low food security” in college

Ah yes, college days. Did you have any kids then?

On the topic of obesity and poor people:

I was out and about doing errands recently and stopped to pick up bread and milk. It took me several minutes of searching to find a loaf of bread whose second ingredient wasn't "corn syrup".

Inexpensive food is quite often crappy food. The way you get an inexpensive product through commercial food manufacture is, apparently, to load it up with sugar, cheap and unwholesome oils, and the like. Eating crappy food will make you fat, and lead to other chronic health issues like diabetes, etc.

When I was poor, I used to shop at the Dominican grocery store, because their stuff, although cheap, wasn't loaded down with as much sugar and other junk. Don't know why, it just wasn't.

Plus, Cafe Bustelo rocks.

thanks -

[hilzoy]

Jes: "You've also got to be able to live somewhere you can store fifty pounds of rice without it being stolen, being eaten by rats, mice, or other vermin"

Silly Jes: you put out the rice, wait for the vermin, and then fry them up to go with the rice!

D'oh.... :)

[Gary Farber]

Megan's point #1 is idiotic.

However, her other points are arguable, and I tend to think it's unfair to not equally note her #5:

5) The economy doesn't need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.

I don't understand how her post can be addressed and this point ignored; it seems to me to perhaps be a somewhat unfair reading, if she's willing to see a monetary stream instead of EBT cards.

Although it would be much clearer if Megan had stated overtly whether she'd support or oppose giving money to the poor, in which case we'd really have something to argue about.

(And setting aside the foolish knocks on the obesity of "the poor," made as if individuals were generalizations.)

[hilzoy]

Moreover:

“It’s a delicacy in many cultures,” she said. “The cockroaches provide a nutritional value, like beef, chicken and shrimp.”

Or then again, maybe not:

"Of the insects extant today, one of the most ancient is the cockroach. It dates from the Carboniferous Period which began about 360 million years ago. Some Isaan folk believe that eating cockroaches can cure certain illnesses. But this insect, according to Kanwee, is a real health hazard even if cooked before being eaten. He said the cockroach spreads disease because it is host to a number of dangerous viruses and bacteria and a carrier of parasites like Raillietina sisiraji and Moniliformis which can cause stomach ache, diarrhoea, tiredness and hallucinations."

[hilzoy]

Gary: I think it would have been unfair had I been arguing against her general conclusion, rather than noting the idiocy of her first point.

For the record: the existence of hungry people in America does not imply that we should include increased food stamp funding as part of a stimulus package.

[Nate]

Reduction of food variety, considering the kinds of food markets available in most poorer areas, usually means less quality food, with more sugar and crap in it, which leads to obesity.

So even on that level, her argument that hunger's not the problem, obesity is, is completely backwards.

[russell]

Coincidentally, MB Williams over at Wampum has a series of very good posts up on this topic right now.

which can cause stomach ache, diarrhoea, tiredness and hallucinations

Hallucinations?

Don't tell the kids, or a cockroach-eating craze will sweep the nation.

Thanks -

[Bill]

Two months is sixty days which works out to around 1350 calories per day. 1350 calories per day is far less than the Japanese fighting men lived on in World War Two. Based on the images of grossly disfigured men, women, and children that we got to see in New Orleans, I think it’s a fair assumption that the average dependent American enjoys a diet far in excess of 1350 calories per day.

Cheap food can be very healthy. The excuse “all they can afford is fast food” is crap. For the price of a “Number 5”, you can buy enough brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken to feed a family for two days. We need to admit that our society has grown complacent.

Families in Guatemala and Honduras have to get by on a family budget of $3/day when the father can find work. Those are the people who know about food insecurity. Americans have nothing to complain about.

[Jesurgislac]

Two months is sixty days which works out to around 1350 calories per day.

"To put things in perspective, the Nazis provided concentration camp inmates at Auschwitz with a diet of 1,300 calories per day for light work prisoners and 1,700 calories for hard labor. The average prisoner at Auschwitz died of starvation within three months on this diet." cite

[Jesurgislac]

For the price of a “Number 5”, you can buy enough brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken to feed a family for two days.

Assuming that there is anywhere local where you can buy brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken, and assuming that you can afford to (and know how to) cook brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken without worrying that something will go wrong and you'll waste all that money and your family will go hungry, and assuming you have anywhere to store the food for the second day...

Really, Bill: college students live a particularly cushioned kind of "poverty". To reason that because you know all about how to survive on a limited income as a student and it wasn't that bad means you've touched bottom of poverty in America makes you sound like an ass.

Families in Guatemala and Honduras have to get by on a family budget of $3/day when the father can find work. Those are the people who know about food insecurity.

Ah, the old "Not As Bad As" reasoning...

[hilzoy]

Also, I'd love to see a comparison between the US and Guatemalan cost of living...

[Sebastian]

So I believe what you are saying Jesurgislac is that Bill is horrifically wrong: two hours of minimum wage work can't get you enough nutrition for 2 full months, it can only get you enough for 1.5 full months.

[Jesurgislac]

Bill is horrifically wrong on all sorts of levels, Sebastian, but as I recall, last time poverty was discussed here you argued in a similar way: that because you'd sometimes been short of money as a student, you knew all about poverty and understood that it wasn't that bad.

[Carleton Wu]

Based on the images of grossly disfigured men, women, and children that we got to see in New Orleans, I think it’s a fair assumption that the average dependent American enjoys a diet far in excess of 1350 calories per day.

Yep, that there's some scientific information if I ever heard it. 'I saw some people once'. Nice racial subtext, too. Congrats.
And, as pointed out above, 'average' does not address the problem of a subset. You can, of course, continue to ignore your logical fallacy if it makes you feel better about ignoring hungry children.

Families in Guatemala and Honduras have to get by on a family budget of $3/day when the father can find work. Those are the people who know about food insecurity. Americans have nothing to complain about.

First, food is cheaper there than here.
Second, your theoretical calculations based on 'I saw it once' data points are small solace to actual hungry children.
Third, you still haven't explained how- despite the pathetic ease of getting a healthy and fulfilling diet in America- you managed to frequently go hungry while in college.
Were you disabled somehow in a manner that allowed you to study but not to work?
Were you so profoundly lazy that you couldn't work a couple of hours every few months to keep a steady supply of food?
Or (my preferred explanation)- did your two BS rationalizations run completely at cross-purposes, along the lines of "I didnt steal your bike and besides it's cruddy, the front brake doesn't work".

[Carleton Wu]

So I believe what you are saying Jesurgislac is that Bill is horrifically wrong: two hours of minimum wage work can't get you enough nutrition for 2 full months, it can only get you enough for 1.5 full months.

Again, rice does not provide anything like complete nutrition.

[Sebastian]

"Assuming that there is anywhere local where you can buy brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken, and assuming that you can afford to (and know how to) cook brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken without worrying that something will go wrong and you'll waste all that money and your family will go hungry, and assuming you have anywhere to store the food for the second day..."

A cheap rice cooker can be purchased and a 99 cent store for about $10. (Yes I know, $10 is more than 99 cents but take that up with the truth in advertising people.). You can cook all sorts of things in a rice cooker--it is very much like a crock-pot. The cool thing about that is you don't even need a functioning kitchen--just a working electrical outlet. And you can teach kids without supervision how to use it without any particularly big fear of having a fire.

I'm perfectly willing to help out the people who can't find a dry place to sleep that has access to an electric outlet--but that isn't 35.5 million people in the US either.

Hmmm, I in a minor threadjack let's think of high impact things that we could do with $1 million dollars. I suspect that 50,000 $20 rice cookers (we can upgrade slightly from the 99 cent store version) might be one of the most efficient things I can think of to help lots of poor people.

[Dan Miller]

If anyone's interested, Megan has a follow-up post at the Atlantic Monthly that goes into some more detail.

[Sebastian]

"Again, rice does not provide anything like complete nutrition."

Again we are talking about a $12-15 bag for more than a month's worth of rice. Even if you spent $20 a week rounding that out with other stuff you're talking a very low food budget that is well within the means of almost any poor family.

"Sebastian, but as I recall, last time poverty was discussed here you argued in a similar way: that because you'd sometimes been short of money as a student, you knew all about poverty and understood that it wasn't that bad."

Actually I think you are remembering the short time I lived in my car, but whatever.

You realize that you are not contradicting my statements, you are merely attacking the messenger, right?

[Gary Farber]

"Gary: I think it would have been unfair had I been arguing against her general conclusion, rather than noting the idiocy of her first point."

Fair enough; I think it would have been better to have acknowledged, if for no other reason than that only a small minority of blog readers ever clicks on links to read the context of a quote, that Megan wasn't explicitly or implicitly saying that there should be no aid for those who have trouble affording food, despite the strong implication otherwise in her first point, taken alone, as you presented it, but it's a presentation choice reasonable people can differ over.

Obviously I have no problem with people explaining to Megan why her first point is ill-thought-out; I just like to see bashing confined to the actual stupid points people make, and discouraged from going into imaginary issues.

As for food aid itself, I don't see why we don't just let people compete with pigeons in picking up bird feed and garbage: there's more than enough out there on the streets to feed every hungry child, woman, and man in America, and they'd be getting much-needed exercise while fetching it, if they'd just bother to make the effort.

Have you ever looked through a garbage dumpster behind a restaurant? Do you have any idea how much perfectly edible food is thrown out every night? It's yours for the taking, if you just get off your lazy "poor" ass and go get it!

And the dumpsters behind the better restaurants have delicious food!

The problem with Americans is that they just don't appreciate how spoiled they are.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA

[russell]

OK, let's assume that a family of three or four can live on a big old bag of rice, an assortment of vegetables available at any neighborhood grocery store, and a chicken or two a week. That is actually NOT a bad assumption.

That family also has to pay for housing, utilities, heat, transportation, clothes, medicine as needed, soap, toilet paper, and all of the other basic things we all need. So, it's also actually NOT a bad assumption that a little assistance would be helpful.

In the context of McArdle's piece, there's also the question of whether increased direct aid to poor people would be a useful stimulus on the larger economy. From here, we have this:

Of all tax and spending stimulus options that CBO examined, the only two that it found would have a large "bang-for-the-buck" as effective stimulus and act fast to boost the economy are the unemployment insurance and food stamp provisions

No doubt the folks at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities are a bunch of hippie commies, but the CBO is not.

It sucks to be poor. It's kind of entertaining when you're a student, and it's character building as hell, but it sucks. It really, really does. Especially when you have kids.

If we're looking to pass money around to stimulate spending, I don't see what the damned problem is with giving some to poor people. Contrary to the pronouncements of the "moral hazard" crowd, it sure as hell is not going to make poor people fond of being poor.

Thanks -

[Anarch]

Someone needs to (re-)read The Road To Wigan Pier...

[Davebo]

What does a country with a per capita GDP of over $37,000.00 due when it notices problems with hunger among it's lowest earners?

Dude, the dumpster is that way!

Meanwhile we've spent what, $100,000.00 per person on each and every Iraqi?

Yep, our priorities are a bit screwed up.

Perhaps America's poor should immigrate to Mosul?

[Davebo]

And on a side note.

Yes, I was always broke in college.

But I lived on a boat.

So while I ate a heck of a lot of fish. (I hate fish these days), boy did I get the chicks!

[gwangung]

Again we are talking about a $12-15 bag for more than a month's worth of rice. Even if you spent $20 a week rounding that out with other stuff you're talking a very low food budget that is well within the means of almost any poor family.

You are, of course, budgeting in the time to shop for that rice (the best deals for which are not necessarily within reach) looking for that $20 of vegetables. And you can do that with children in tow.

Sorry, but I suspect anyone who says you can train children to do this and children to do that...sometimes you can, sometimes you CAN'T.....

[grumpy realist]

Wow. If Megan put up that post with an idea that this would somehow negate the image of self-proclaimed libertarians as mean-spirited "I've got mine so screw you" people who don't even bother to check their facts in light of their hypotheses of the world....

Better luck next time, dearie!

[Jesurgislac]

Perhaps if Huckabee becomes President, he'll buy a popcorn popper for every hungry American family, and a squirrel to cook in it.

[lou]

Cheap food can be very healthy. The excuse “all they can afford is fast food” is crap. For the price of a “Number 5”, you can buy enough brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken to feed a family for two days. We need to admit that our society has grown complacent.

I'd like you to live in a high-poverty neighborhood with no means of transportation and find a grocery store within walking distance that carries fresh vegetables other than onions or meat other than hot dogs. I live on the border of such a neighborhood. If you lived in that neighborhood, you'd either A. have to take a crowded bus to go get groceries and good luck with that with kids in tow. Or B. walk two miles one way to the closest supermarket, which doesn't stock the freshest of vegetables. So you'd have to only buy enough to last one or two days. So in other words, you'd have to be making this trip every other day. With kids in tow.

By the way, green vegetables are very expensive. Spinach costs a lot more than you seem to realize.

[lou]

Cheap food can be very healthy. The excuse “all they can afford is fast food” is crap. For the price of a “Number 5”, you can buy enough brown rice, carrots, spinach, and chicken to feed a family for two days. We need to admit that our society has grown complacent.

I'd like you to live in a high-poverty neighborhood with no means of transportation and find a grocery store within walking distance that carries fresh vegetables other than onions or meat other than hot dogs. I live on the border of such a neighborhood. If you lived in that neighborhood, you'd either A. have to take a crowded bus to go get groceries and good luck with that with kids in tow. Or B. walk two miles one way to the closest supermarket, which doesn't stock the freshest of vegetables. So you'd have to only buy enough to last one or two days. So in other words, you'd have to be making this trip every other day. With kids in tow.

By the way, green vegetables are very expensive. Spinach costs a lot more than you seem to realize.

[KCinDC]

Perhaps America's poor should immigrate to Mosul?

No, Davebo, they can stay right here and we can just as easily take $100,000 for each of them and give it to Halliburton, Blackwater, and various weapon makers. No doubt that would benefit them at least as much as the Iraqis you seem to think are making out like bandits.

[Phil]

I think it’s a fair assumption that the average dependent American enjoys a diet far in excess of 1350 calories per day.

You know, even 1,350 calories a day of food laden with corn syrup, sodium, fat, fillers and preservatives is really, really bad for you, nutritionally. In fact, it's a major cause of obesity. Now I'll give you ten guesses as to what kinds of food are most easily available to people in the poorest neighborhoods. The first nine guesses don't count.

[Sebastian]

"You are, of course, budgeting in the time to shop for that rice (the best deals for which are not necessarily within reach) looking for that $20 of vegetables. And you can do that with children in tow."

Ok, so we are talking about 10 hours of work per month for the money and if I'm generous, 8 hours a month for the shopping.

Getting the food just isn't the big problem. Getting the housing however is probably something worth talking about.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Megan's point #1 is idiotic.

However, her other points are arguable,

I'm not so sure. Consider:

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.

It's not clear to me what she is getting at here, so I don't know if it's arguable or not. Does the "money" referred to include food stamps? If so, what's her point? If not, then I doubt that this is a true statement.

4) The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than generating new economic activity. Eventually this will probably generate more economic activity, but probably well after your stimulus is needed.

To the extent this matters it is true of the cash benefits she thinks are better also. Some will be spent on food, and the effect will be the same, possibly a smidge smaller. In any case, I doubt it's large enough to matter. Even in the case of the few foods that might fit in this category, the purchases will still stimulate grocery store activity and transportation.

[Carleton Wu]

That family also has to pay for housing, utilities, heat, transportation, clothes, medicine as needed, soap, toilet paper, and all of the other basic things we all need. So, it's also actually NOT a bad assumption that a little assistance would be helpful.

This is the larger discussion- people who fall into food insecurity are those who are paying all of these bills, barely getting by, and then someone gets sick or hurt and can't work, or has to pay for emergency medical care, loses a job, etc.
The financial crunch comes. Yes, if they had 20$ and could get to a good grocery story, they could eat pretty well for a week. But they've got competing priorities- getting the breadwinner healthy, paying rent, utilities, paying for transportation to get the breadwinner to their job, and eating.

Sometimes eating takes a backseat. And, you know, it wouldn't take a great deal of compassion to say "hey, that's a rough spot to be in" rather than recommending starvation diets of rice or expounding the wonders of cheap appliances.

I give you an example: I knew a guy who worked as a janitor in a warehouse I worked in. He worked two jobs, his wife one, while taking care of four kids. Then he got sick, for several weeks, too sick to work. They spent their tiny savings on health care, got kicked out of their apartment, lived in their station wagon for a week or two, and finally managed to get things back together via hard work and going without.
They were short of food, sometimes. It was not because they were too stupid to cook rice.

[gwangung]

Ok, so we are talking about 10 hours of work per month for the money and if I'm generous, 8 hours a month for the shopping.

No, you're being totally unrealistic.

I'm surprised. You generally have a better handle on the nuts and bolts of how things work in the real world.

Not all markets are close to people. If you have kids, you either have to take them in tow, or you find someone to look after them. Heaven help you if someone is sick, even with a mild cold.

All that takes TIME. I've seen how it takes to get even well behaved ADULTS taken care of and squared away for minor chores like shopping---the more people you add, the time it takes gets multiplied geometrically. And even as a bachelor, I know that time spent gets multiplied even more with children.

I just don't think you have a very good handle on what it really takes to do what you seem to think is so easy.

Maybe 8 hours a month if you're alone. MAYBE. But with kids? That's a joke, son...

[Jesurgislac]

It could be eight hours a month if you shop once a week (which requires you to have enough space and appliances to easily store food for a week, too), get everything at one supermarket, drive there and drive back, live alone, and are pretty organised. In fact, if you regard 8 hours as more than enough time, you probably have space and appliances (and front money) to shop for food once a fortnight if for some reason you have to skip one week).

And, at a guess, all of this applies to Sebastian: except that he attributes the whole to his good organisation skills, and takes everything else for granted.

[Tom Maguire]

I think a more forceful rebuttal of Ms. McArdle's point was available.

The gist of her argument seems to be that

1. *IF* the current food stamp program provides 100% of the food assistance needed by the poor and

2. *IF*, based on obesity rates for different income groups, it is hard to believe that we have a real hunger problem in America, then

3. Giving more food stamps to the poor will not help them or stimulate the economy - they don't need more food, won't buy more food, and why did we bother?

However - per the food stamp calculation, the aid recipient is expected to contribute 30% of monthly income towards food. That means assumption (1) is wrong.

So - it may simply be that if we give the poor more food stamps (within some limit, e.g., 20% more) they will buy and eat *exactly* what they have been buying and eating up to now but simply pay less out of pocket to buy it.

In which case they will have more available cash for other things. Being poor, the bet is that they will spend, rather than save, the windfall - hence, a stimulus, through purchases of things other than food (which quashes Ms. McArdles's point 4, that pulling on the food chain is a slow and uncertain stimulus).

As noted above, the CBO reached just that conclusion.

Once eligibility has been determined, the amount of the monthly Food Stamp benefit is calculated. A household is expected to contribute 30 percent of its net income (gross income minus deductions for certain expenses) toward food expenditures. In 2008, the maximum amount that an eligible four-person household with no income in the contiguous United States can receive is $542 per month.

During fiscal year 2006, approximately 27 million people received Food Stamp benefits each month. Nearly all benefits went to the 87 percent of Food Stamp households that were in poverty. Over half of all benefits went to the 39 percent of Food Stamp households whose income was less than or equal to half of the poverty line. The vast majority of Food Stamp benefits are spent
extremely rapidly. And because Food Stamp recipients have low income and few assets, most of any additional benefits would probably be spent quickly.

[grumpy realist]

If you're a single mom on welfare with one or more kids, perhaps taking care of an elderly parent, the last thing you're going to want to have to worry about is the time required to get and cook "good food", especially when there's all this "convenience food" easy to grab.

Also not easy if getting to the grocery store requires 30 minutes on a bus, while there's a McDonald's on every corner.

[liberal japonicus]

Gary's argument that we should take Megan McArdle's other arguments more seriously is something that I wonder about. When a writer tries so clearly to load up her delivery like she does in this one (and tends to do all the time), I'm thinking maybe ridicule and sarcasm are the appropriate responses.

As far as food aid, it seems to me that this has some relationship with the way we view charity as a society. I'm not quite sure how this plays out, but we seem to be much less willing to provide housing, or jobs to people who are poor than we are with food.

[russell]

Megan's point #1 is idiotic.

However, her other points are arguable

"Arguable" they are. I'll argue with them.

2) Food stamps only imperfectly translate into increased cash income, meaning that the poor will spend . . . more money on food.

That's right, they will. It's an economic stimulus initiative. Spending more money is the point.

Unless her concern is that they'll just get fatter and fatter.

3) If the increase in food stamps takes the form of expanded eligibility, rather than larger grants, the administrative issues and public outreach will delay your stimulus until well after it is no longer needed.

Sez Megan. I don't know how long it takes to spin up a new food stamp recipient, nor do I know how long we'll need to be stimulating the economy. She could be right. I'll spot her this one.

4) The limits on the type of goods available to food stamp consumers, and the growing season, mean that some (it's hard to say how much) of the food stamp spending will simply draw down perishable stocks rather than generating new economic activity

I'm an economics dummy, so somebody help me out if I go wrong here. But "drawing down perishable stocks" means buying something, right? So, you're putting money into the economy, right?

5) The economy doesn't need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is.

The larger topic under discussion is what form an economic stimulus package should take. An economic stimulus package is a government program that deliberate distorts the market, hopefully in a positive direction.

What's special about the "food sector" that it should be exempt from such an initiative? Why not exclude paper clips, or automobile tires, or men's hats?

Either we're going to intervene in the market, or we're not. You're on the bus or you're off the bus.

At least if we do so by expanding food stamps, somebody gets a couple of good meals out of it.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"Gary's argument that we should take Megan McArdle's other arguments more seriously is something that I wonder about."

Gary made no such argument.

[wonkie]

I wouldn't bother appealling to mcArdle's sense of decency.

Everyone who actuyally gives a damn atlready knows that poor on food stamps get less fresh food ( because it is too expensive), less bulk food (because they are too hard to carry on a bus, especially ifthhe food stamp recepient is disabled) and more of the kinnd of food that will ward off hunger cheaply--pastas, for esxample.

BTW I do the groceery shopping for a disabled man and I use his food stamps. If I spent his money on "good food" he'd starve to death.

This was all discussed to death back when Food Stamps were a new idea.

[dutchmarbel]

I have a car, plenty of shops/supermarkets in walking/driving/biking distance and 3 kids. Now that the kids are old enough to leave at home I spend about 8 hours a week on shopping, before it would have been at least 4 hours per week more.

This does not include the writing of shoppinglists, checking out recipies or the actual cooking - and since we are not poor I don't spend time on research about what is cheaper in which shops (which I did when I was poorer).

I like rice, but it isn't very filling or very nutricious so it would not be my first choice of 'filling food' to be honest. And all the cheap rice is white rice (over here at least), which doesn't even have the ... eh... peel(?) you need for enough vitamine B and such.

To eat properly you don't just need calories, you also need vitamins and minerals and other essentials. Eating healty is much more expensive than eating unhealthy and can lead to malnourishment quite easily. Variation in food is rather essential and though eating a few weeks less healthy during college won't hurt you eating a rather limited diet for longer periods can cause great harm.

Question: don't people that have an urge to squander their 'dole' on drugs or other bad habits just sell their foodstamps? Or is that impossible?