Slashdot Mirror
How Techies Rescued Food Stamps (wired.com)
New submitter rgh02 writes: There is an endless variety of apps designed to manage life for the upper middle class, but most low-income Americans don't benefit from the same time-saving hacks. Thanks to new trends in civic technology, that's beginning to change. The 43 million Americans depending on food stamps are seeing the introduction of apps like Propel's Fresh EBT, which allows users to check balances, track deals, and organize budgets accordingly. And Propel is only one of several companies looking to disrupt outdated social programs, Tonya Riley reports at Backchannel. But the Trump administration, with its hiring freezes and budget cuts, poses threats to these advancements. Riley dives deep into the progress that's been made and how companies are navigating these obstacles.
Is to show how this not just reduces time for the EBT customers, but can reduce headcount in government call centers by reducing the need for customer service. I don't understand why techies have never figured out that government and business have similar goals.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When you see people in the checkout buying their food with EBT and then get $20 cash back so they can buy alcohol with cash at the same register. Your tax dollars at work.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
My major plan is to build our social insurances on top of a universal social security. This improves the financial position of all households, most-importantly the lowest-income households. When you do the computation for necessary aid, you're starting from a higher annual income, so the amount of necessary aid is smaller.
Can these apps provide deal tracking and budgeting from cash for lower-income households without EBT services?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is an endless variety of apps designed to manage life for the upper middle class, but most low-income Americans don't benefit from the same time-saving hacks
Let me get this straight, you need EBT because you can't afford food but you can afford a smart phone? Anyone else see the problem with this?
We'll make great pets
rgh02 spammer for wired, who also upvotes stories from the other wired spammer mirandakatz.
You have a steady job, buy a phone. Lose the job, can't find another, manage to get food stamps. Voila, you have a phone and welfare.
The food stamp program says that poor people are too stupid to budget for themselves, while at the same time creating massive bureaucratic overhead and supporting fraud. How about we simply get rid of it and replace it with simple cash benefits, like most other civilized nations do?
This, of course, does not happen. It is a made-up story with the cynical intent to make middle-class people hate poor people.
I have seen this happen. There was a women that worked with my ex-wife who was not married but had a domestic partner. The domestic partner bought a brand new 5 bedroom house and this women and her kids lived there. She drew on every single social program they could including EBT. She drove a newer Durango to the store to use EBT. Yes, it does happen. People game the system. In addition to this anecdote, I have several white trash family members who engage in similar gaming. I can call them white trash because they are my family and we both know they are. They have no problems proudly admitting it either and emphasizing how they are justified in doing what they're doing because everything is corrupt and this and that. They consider it social justice.
We'll make great pets
I was paying a friend's cellphone bill last year after she lost her job.It was more than my family (3 people) spent on food every month.
When then use the word "disrupt." The use of the world indicates the individual does not know what they are talking about and are a condescending ass-hole.
So like two people.
That's a very leftist view you have.
Fact is the hiring freeze is designed to bring the size of government back under control. It's FAR too big, and 43 million people using food stamps is rediculous. They all need to get better paying jobs, and how do we do that? By not making them available to illegal aliens, which makes more jobs available for U.S. citizens, motivates illegals to stay away, and the less available workers means the value of those positions goes up.
1. I pay with a good plan about 20 euro per month for my smart phone, and 30 euro for my land line... So explain us carefully why smart phone are money thrown out ? Keep in mind that to get a job almost certainly you will need to have some sort of phone connection, so that you get called back.
2. the puritain moral argument... The worst things ever. Program like food stamp make sure people and children get food and do not have to make choice like "phone/rent/food or medicine pick 1". Making it a PITA to get benefits never showed that people get a job quicker (there are some cheater, but they are a crushing minority). It only make people more desperate and more outcast.
Let me guess, you are a republican, and you get your news from fox news or breitbart.
And in case you bring the choomer argument that they are using EBT to get money in cash : http://www.snopes.com/politics... it is false.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We already hate the deplorables, didn't you get the memo?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
WTF do you eat that you spend less than $100 on food for 3 every month
Anyone else see the problem with this?
Scrolling through this thread, apparently you're not the only one, but one of the depressingly few.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Instead, the people receiving these taxpayer-funded handouts would have to actually do something productive with their lives.
Let's look at the how well this notion fares in light of Department of Agriculture figures on the program:
So the idea that ending food stamps will make people more productive isn't really supported by the data.
Contrary to the stereotype of a food stamp recipient as a black person living indefinitely on welfare (technically impossible since 1996), the most common food stamp recipient is white (not that that should matter but it evidently does) and has a job. Of those that *could* be forced to get a job by ending the program, most already do so within a few months.
For various reasons its also doubtful that ending the program per se will save much if any money. For example it is much easier to help a senior stay healthy and independent with food assistance than it is to institutionalize him.
You *could* save government expenditures by getting rid of medicare, medicaid and food stamps at the same time.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it. Most EBT recipients probably also receive some cash assistance. So it seems reasonable to make EBT and non-EBT purchases simultaneously. I don't really see the outrage at all about somebody spending $20 on a case of beer. It's nutritious and delicious. (Well, unless it's Busch light but that's a separate problem.) There is a lot of vitriol modded-up in this thread but the one productive suggestion is to get rid of welfare-cliffs. The *best* way to do this would be UBI but there are more bureaucracy-intensive ways if they are preferred.
When you incentivize something you get more of it. {...} The biggest problems with our welfare programs is that they incentivize laziness and nonwork.
The thing that you dare to call "welfare" on your side of the Atlantic pond would be considered as backward and medieval by European standards.
(Common you just recently started to try to provide universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world. And the guy who you elected president is even trying to repel it).
If "more welfare" leads to "less workers" as you suggest, Europe would have completly collapsed following 100% unemployment half a century ago.
That didn't happen.
In fact, some of the best faring countries in Europe (e.g.: Scandinavian countries, Germany, etc.) are also country with the most advanced social welfare systems. And those still aren't collapsing under unemployment today.
Not everybody who gets welfare is lazy - some are actually very hard workers.
There are large-scale studies which have been done in Germany and in France (yes, France, the country where "going on strike every other week to insist on social welfare and benefits" is a national sport).
Verdict : there are actually very few abuses of the welfare system.
Far less than what far-right parties would like you to think.
There are a few lazy people, but nearly the vast majority are very hard workers.
But the programs need to be structured in a way that encourages people to work by making sure that work always pays more than not working.
If you do that by making access to welfare more tedious and difficult, you won't be helping.
- The few lazy person, who have the intent of abusing the system will find more creative ways around your hurdles and still manage to get the money.
- Most of the remaining people, those who have real difficulties and need help suddenly are even more likely to get their help if it is so difficult. They are already in deep shit, if you make their life even shittier, you're not helping.
You need to help measures that can help finding new jobs :
- cover basic needs (food / shelter) without any question. If the people can't even get those, they'll never work.
- helping people move to where the jobs are, as you suggested in your comment.
- helping people retrain to other jobs that are available here. Cover the costs to make sure that education is available to anyone who wants a new job. (I know that seems hard in a country that relies on "college loans" and where the cost of a diploma is close to the budget of some small countries).
etc.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
a big part of our government, of any modern government, is keeping people employed in the face of increasing productivity and automation. Our Military isn't that big to defend us. Hell, we had generals begging to get _fewer_ tanks because they didn't know what to do with the ones they had. In large parts of the country the government is the #1 employer and Wal-Mart's #2. We're running out of work that can be done by non-geniuses.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
All of this is just accounting: A win is a win and a loss is a loss.
I worked at a grocery store checkout for 10 years, and the overwhelming majority of people using EBT did not appear to be gaming the system.
Don't let it change your world-view though.... stay woke.
When both Snopes and Politfact say that the lobster with the EBT card is true, you can be pretty sure it's true...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
All you people are getting so upset over a program (food stamps or SNAP) that costs $70 billion a year. In what is it, an $18 trillion economy? Federal budget of $4 trillion. What are we talking, 2 cents on the dollar to feed poor people. Your fellow Americans. Really?
Every system has people who game it. The problem arises when your fury at the few gamers is so great that you are willing to cause drastic harm to those who are honestly in need in order to avoid it.
If you want to talk about fairness and equity, why should I have to pay for the cheaters who abuse the system? It is indeed a fairness and equity problem but what you seem to be suggesting is that we get out scales and weigh the cost of cheaters vs. the cost of those truly in need. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that those "truly in need" outweigh the "cheaters" but have supplied no evidence for that claim. By the way, what is the litmus test for that anyway? You seem to be taking the position of some type of utilitarian morality and ethics. If we applied this to murder, you wouldn't think what you're thinking. It's okay that we allow one murderer to get away will killing an entire family so long as we stop at least twice as many.
If you want to have a more interesting conversation, let's frame it in the context of the highly academic discussion of ethics and morality that has gone back at least to ancient Greek civilization. You seem to think the problem is trivial. If that is the case, why have we grappled with this for thousands of years?
We'll make great pets
It is amazing how many businesses have been started in the last 20 years since EBT and unemployment started encouraging people to become small businessmen while on the program.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I worked at a grocery store checkout for 10 years, and the overwhelming majority of people using EBT did not appear to be gaming the system.
Don't let it change your world-view though.... stay woke.
Please do describe your profiling method in great detail. I'm sure it's very accurate. Perhaps you should supply it to Federal and State governments to use it as a means to differentiate between the gamers and non-gamers.
We'll make great pets
You have a steady job, buy a phone. Lose the job, can't find another, manage to get food stamps. Voila, you have a phone and welfare.
And this is such a large market segment that we should capitalize on it by writing mobile apps to people who can afford to buy them because they don't have a job and can't afford to buy food? Seems legit.
We'll make great pets
WTF do you eat that you spend less than $100 on food for 3 every month
Ramen and peanut butter. The college diet of champions. Maybe we should put them on EBT too?
We'll make great pets
What the fuck happened to personal responsibility....???
Being that personal responsibility is only applied to poor people that can't afford to incorporate, why should we care?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So if somebody shoots you and robs your corpse you would totally deserve it since you have failed your personal responsibility to be bulletproof.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Most of what was described IS temporary. You push welfare people back into school to get them off welfare, not to keep them on.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You don't know what he got in trade...note 'she'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
1. You've been misinformed - nobody here has tried universal healthcare. The Affordable Care Act - also known as "Obamacare" - isn't anything like universal healthcare. It basically says you have to buy overpriced health insurance or pay a fine to the government every year. California just looked at providing actual universal healthcare. This is a state run totally by liberals. They rejected it because it's too expensive and they would have had to triple their state budget.
Furthermore, the ACA was pretty much illegally passed by Congress and the healthcare exchanges are mostly now in what we call a "death spiral" or "vicious cycle" where fewer people are buying insurance driving up the rates for those left, which causes fewer of them to remain, etc.
2. You don't understand the incentive system. Right now, we have what are called "welfare cliffs". Basically, imagine I get $300/week from welfare programs (there are many). I have an opportunity to get a job making $8/hour, which is $320/week. But with taxes taken out I only bring home about $280/week. In other words, if I take a job I also have less money coming in. Another $20/week less might mean I can no longer pay bills.
The problem is that it's nearly impossible to break out of that cycle. If I took the job I'd get a raise at some point, or possibly a better job down the line. But I can't think about the long term if I can't eat or pay rent today. This is how people get stuck on welfare. We call that a "cliff" because benefits are all or nothing in many cases, so if I work all my benefits disappear.
The other way this happens is with a single mother who can get a job but then has to pay for childcare. Childcare tends to cost as much as a low paying job pays.
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is good for *everybody*. But, again, hard to get politicians to do it. If you try anything like this liberals will scream about how you hate poor people and conservatives will claim you're giving away too much money.
Do you have ESP?
If you want to compare this to murder, it's more like, should we let somebody get a bruise on their toe if it stops two murders. And we seem to have already resolved that issue. If a police officer is on their way to a parking complaint and there is a call for a home invasion, they will divert from the improperly parked vehicle and respond to the violent crime. We have plenty of documented evidence that our social safety nets have kept many people out of poverty at a very modest cost. They exist all around the developed world.
Confirmation bias. You obviously have no formal education in moral and ethical philosophy. It's a waste of my time to attempt to have an educated discussion with you. Try David Hume.
We'll make great pets
No...it applies to everyone.
Not sure where the incorporation comes into the conversation, we're talking about living, breathing humans being responsible for their actions and living with the consequences....please stick to the subject.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No...it applies to everyone.
In theory... But it is not being applied to everyone. Some people are rich enough to hide behind their corporate charter. Carl Icahn is my favorite example. There are many others. So that part of the issue is very relevant, no matter how you try to evade it. If you don't apply the rules to everyone, don't expect any respect for them. Right or wrong, people will follow the example, not the word. It's part of of our animal heritage.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Anyone else see the problem with this?
No, because you can get a phone for cheap and it lasts for years.
You do realize that if they spend $15 on a lobster, that's $15 less that they have to spend on other things, right? Why do you care how they choose to spend that $15? Maybe they're okay with going hungry one day so they can actually have something nice to eat for once.
You can't really bring outliers like this into the argument. I mean, you can count the number of people in the world "that" wealthy likely only using two hands.
There are extremes at both ends and you can't really use those as examples for how the majority of people should be and act.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
They are not "outliers". It is common practice. Most of them don't make the headlines. That is what "limited liability" is all about, to diffuse blame. Your double standards are unacceptable.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is exactly how unemployment benefits work, at least how they did in NJ a few years ago...
I lost my job, drew an unemployment check of, let's say, $350/week. When I was approved to receive benefits I had 26x weeks of $350/week payments in my 'account' - every check drew down my account, and benefits ran out when the 'account' was depleted.
I found part-time work. With part-time work I had a new, increased, weekly benefit, call it $450/week. My part-time job paid me $250/week, and that was subtracted from my new weekly benefit, so that in addition to my $250/week paycheck I also received a $200 unemployment check, so my weekly income became $450/week.
I believe this approach is pretty common across the states. By drawing down less money each week, my benefits lasted longer than 26x weeks.
Ken
The 43 million Americans depending on food stamps are seeing the introduction of apps like Propel's Fresh EBT, which allows users to check balances, track deals, and organize budgets accordingly. And Propel is only one of several companies looking to disrupt outdated social programs, Tonya Riley reports at Backchannel. But the Trump administration, with its hiring freezes and budget cuts, poses threats to these advancements.
How do federal budget cuts and hiring freezes hurt private companies like Propel?
Q: Is Propel a non-profit, or are they hoping to profit off SNAP recipients?
Ken
The solution is to make sure that people *always* get more money when they work (at least if they're capable). That way they're incentivized to work and they can break the cycle. Instead of benefits disappearing, they can gradually be phased out as the person earns more money, and it can be done in such a way that more money from work always means more income.
This is exactly how unemployment benefits work, at least how they did in NJ a few years ago...
I lost my job, drew an unemployment check of, let's say, $350/week. When I was approved to receive benefits I had 26x weeks of $350/week payments in my 'account' - every check drew down my account, and benefits ran out when the 'account' was depleted.
I found part-time work. With part-time work I had a new, increased, weekly benefit, call it $450/week. My part-time job paid me $250/week, and that was subtracted from my new weekly benefit, so that in addition to my $250/week paycheck I also received a $200 unemployment check, so my weekly income became $450/week.
I believe this approach is pretty common across the states. By drawing down less money each week, my benefits lasted longer than 26x weeks.
I believe in most states unemployment is all or nothing. I applaud the above approach, this is exactly what needs to happen - get a job and get more money. Unfortunately, though, unemployment benefits are only a small part of "welfare". I believe the federal stuff all has hard cliffs.
Do you have ESP?