![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Some friend this turned out to be...!
A friend of mine is an amateur painter. She has a degree from one of the best colleges in the country (where she earned top grades), and she is able-bodied and healthy. After college, she decided to pursue painting, which is her passion. While she hopes to work professionally as an artist, she is currently working a part-time teaching job. She comes from an upper-middle-class household, and I know she has received some monetary support from her parents in the past. She does not live lavishly by any means, but she lives in a comfortable apartment with roommates and rents a separate art studio. I admire her for pursuing her art and have no problem with her receiving support from her parents as she works on her painting.
Recently, my friend told me that she uses the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to purchase food for herself. I feel that this is dishonest and using the welfare system in a way that hurts those who need it most. When I expressed my concern, she told me that she is not taking a ‘‘spot’’ from someone else. Even though there is not a limit to the number of those who use SNAP via an Electronic Benefits Transfer card (the contemporary equivalent of food stamps), I feel that my friend is taking away from people who need it.
People from all backgrounds can struggle with finances and can (and should) benefit from the small amount of social support that the United States offers. But I feel that by not trying to work or applying to work full-time, and by accepting her parents’ money and using it to support her painting, my friend disqualifies herself from being a SNAP candidate. At the same time, I think artists are a necessary part of our country’s ecosystem, and I certainly do not think that using an E.B.T. card precludes a person from spending money on anything that isn’t a life-or-death necessity. But something about my friend’s situation rubs me the wrong way. Is what she’s doing ethical? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
To begin with, there’s the question of whether she’s officially eligible for SNAP benefits. Though each state determines the eligibility of its residents, there are federal guidelines they must follow. Some pertain to income limits; to qualify for benefits for an extended period, there are also work requirements if you’re able-bodied and don’t have dependents (or other complicating circumstances). Approved volunteer activities can contribute toward the work requirement; the program isn’t designed to make you take the highest paying job you can get. So let’s assume she has accurately represented her situation, parental loans included, and does indeed meet the program’s criteria.
But then there’s the question of how to think about this. When you say you feel your friend is taking benefits from the needy, you don’t mean this literally. SNAP helps tens of millions of people, and there isn’t a cap on the number of recipients. Nobody is going without because of her enrollment. But you know this. Instead, I suspect your thought is that we shouldn’t rely on payments that come from other people’s work unless we have to.
You’re thinking of society, then, as a system in which each of us should use our talents to make whatever reasonable contribution we can. From this perspective, accepting public assistance when we could avoid doing so could look like taking advantage of our fellow citizens who are earning enough to support themselves — some of them by doing jobs they don’t much enjoy.
There’s a long history to this way of thinking about work. Some relates to talk of the ‘‘deserving poor,’’ but another influential formulation is found in the socialist tradition. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 declared, ‘‘In the U.S.S.R., the principle applied is that of socialism: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.’ ’’ (The allusion was to a slogan favored by certain French socialist thinkers of the first half of the 19th century, in a version not to be confused with the one that was introduced by other French socialists of the time and that ends ‘‘to each according to his needs.’’) Here, the thought was that, in a decent society, those who have the capacity to work should be rewarded commensurately with the value of what they produced. Socialists, of course, have tended to doubt that the true value of your work is adequately captured by your wage in a capitalist labor market.
I confess to finding this maxim unattractive, both on the ‘‘ability’’ side and on the ‘‘work’’ side. First, I don’t think society has a right to ask us to do a job just because we’re able to do it. Second, there’s no sensible system of valuing what a person contributes in such a way as to guarantee that it is matched by what they receive.
Still, there’s something to be said for the idea that we all should do our fair share to make our social arrangements work for everyone. My fair share may well depend on my abilities, but people should have broad latitude in deciding how to make their contribution. Part of your friend’s contribution is being made — as you imply in referring to our cultural ecosystem — by doing her work as an artist. She’s also making herself useful through her work as a teacher. If those activities aren’t earning her enough money to feed herself adequately, I don’t see why she shouldn’t take the help our society has decided to offer.
Link
Recently, my friend told me that she uses the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to purchase food for herself. I feel that this is dishonest and using the welfare system in a way that hurts those who need it most. When I expressed my concern, she told me that she is not taking a ‘‘spot’’ from someone else. Even though there is not a limit to the number of those who use SNAP via an Electronic Benefits Transfer card (the contemporary equivalent of food stamps), I feel that my friend is taking away from people who need it.
People from all backgrounds can struggle with finances and can (and should) benefit from the small amount of social support that the United States offers. But I feel that by not trying to work or applying to work full-time, and by accepting her parents’ money and using it to support her painting, my friend disqualifies herself from being a SNAP candidate. At the same time, I think artists are a necessary part of our country’s ecosystem, and I certainly do not think that using an E.B.T. card precludes a person from spending money on anything that isn’t a life-or-death necessity. But something about my friend’s situation rubs me the wrong way. Is what she’s doing ethical? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
To begin with, there’s the question of whether she’s officially eligible for SNAP benefits. Though each state determines the eligibility of its residents, there are federal guidelines they must follow. Some pertain to income limits; to qualify for benefits for an extended period, there are also work requirements if you’re able-bodied and don’t have dependents (or other complicating circumstances). Approved volunteer activities can contribute toward the work requirement; the program isn’t designed to make you take the highest paying job you can get. So let’s assume she has accurately represented her situation, parental loans included, and does indeed meet the program’s criteria.
But then there’s the question of how to think about this. When you say you feel your friend is taking benefits from the needy, you don’t mean this literally. SNAP helps tens of millions of people, and there isn’t a cap on the number of recipients. Nobody is going without because of her enrollment. But you know this. Instead, I suspect your thought is that we shouldn’t rely on payments that come from other people’s work unless we have to.
You’re thinking of society, then, as a system in which each of us should use our talents to make whatever reasonable contribution we can. From this perspective, accepting public assistance when we could avoid doing so could look like taking advantage of our fellow citizens who are earning enough to support themselves — some of them by doing jobs they don’t much enjoy.
There’s a long history to this way of thinking about work. Some relates to talk of the ‘‘deserving poor,’’ but another influential formulation is found in the socialist tradition. The Soviet Constitution of 1936 declared, ‘‘In the U.S.S.R., the principle applied is that of socialism: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.’ ’’ (The allusion was to a slogan favored by certain French socialist thinkers of the first half of the 19th century, in a version not to be confused with the one that was introduced by other French socialists of the time and that ends ‘‘to each according to his needs.’’) Here, the thought was that, in a decent society, those who have the capacity to work should be rewarded commensurately with the value of what they produced. Socialists, of course, have tended to doubt that the true value of your work is adequately captured by your wage in a capitalist labor market.
I confess to finding this maxim unattractive, both on the ‘‘ability’’ side and on the ‘‘work’’ side. First, I don’t think society has a right to ask us to do a job just because we’re able to do it. Second, there’s no sensible system of valuing what a person contributes in such a way as to guarantee that it is matched by what they receive.
Still, there’s something to be said for the idea that we all should do our fair share to make our social arrangements work for everyone. My fair share may well depend on my abilities, but people should have broad latitude in deciding how to make their contribution. Part of your friend’s contribution is being made — as you imply in referring to our cultural ecosystem — by doing her work as an artist. She’s also making herself useful through her work as a teacher. If those activities aren’t earning her enough money to feed herself adequately, I don’t see why she shouldn’t take the help our society has decided to offer.
Link
no subject
1. If you earn 50k a year, you pay about $25 in taxes towards all forms of welfare, including SNAP. (Which, by the way, is a good reason to carry cash or a checkbook. Somehow all those people whining about SNAP shut up real fast when you offer them a refund.)
2. Every single dollar put into SNAP brings back $1.75 into the economy in the form of increased economic activity. It is the absolute most effective economic stimulus we have.
3. Teachers should be paid more.
no subject
OR, listen to the (pleasantly surprisingly) good advice, undo your rectocranial inversion, and don't kick a talented interesting person out of your life.
Maybe have her over to dinner more often. And/or help her buy teaching supplies.
no subject
Wonder just how much parents are contributing and how much that comes with 'and have you sold anything yet'/'have you got a full-time teaching/or other art-related job yet' or other issues.
no subject
I think it's far more heinous that SNAP has to effectively subsidize wealthy business owners who pay their workers so little that they need benefits (Walmart is the most famous example, but there are others, I'm sure).
no subject
And then there’s the U.S. military: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/food-stamps-guidance-us-army-140932153.html
no subject
A part time job, roommates, and parents who are probably paying for the studio. They are an artist and they making things work for them. And if that means they are using SNAP to buy food, then they are fine. YOUR judgement is not needed here. Move along.
no subject
no subject
Fortunately SNAP eligibility is based on actual specific criteria, not LW's feelings.
no subject
no subject
But SNAP? I'm going to assume that someone who receives it genuinely needs it, because there is an application process and explicit income and asset levels one has to meet to qualify. And I'm okay with a few people who have helpful wealthier relatives getting SNAP if it means that people with unhelpful wealthier relatives can also get it.
no subject
lots of LGBT people with wealthy homophobic/transphobic relatives
and not-religious people with super religious relatives
would go without food
no subject
no subject
They tend to be short on money, labor, logistics, space, and very specific kinds of food - our local one is always short of shelf-stable protein options, and the kind of high-calorie pre-packaged highly processed snack food that's good for unhoused people - but if they're handing out pre-packed boxes, not asking for any qualifiers, and there's not a line, you're probably doing them a favor by taking it and eating it. (They will always be glad for the cash donation, though.)
no subject
no subject
(I think LW has some unexamined ish about the social safety net, too, but that's addressed in the response.)
no subject
no subject
… but that's LW's problem to deal with in therapy, not take out on their friend. It's not their friend's fault that the world is unfair. Maybe, I dunno, vote for candidates who support a stronger economic safety net?
no subject
no subject
I don’t apply for government benefits if I can afford to do without them, but policing other regular folks’ behavior around money? That way lies a serious hit to my sanity. No thanks.