upvote
Not even remotely related to what the parent comment said.
reply
You are arguing against a different argument than your parent. He implied that people using food stamps do not respect the effort it took to provide the food. You seem to be arguing whether food stamps are profitable.

Your implication that people when not given free food will starve and that your parent commenter wants people to starve is clear manipulation.

reply
> He implied that people using food stamps do not respect the effort it took to provide the food.

People using food stamps in the US often work full-time jobs making insufficient living wages from highly profitable companies like Walmart

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...

I imagine they probably have a better inherent understanding of real-world food production style work effort than the majority of those of us who post to sites like HN.

reply
> I doubt you are an actual member of the bourgeoisie

I wouldn't be so sure of that on HN. (Also noting you're using the Marxist definition rather than the default dictionary definition, which is "middle class".)

A well-paid tech employee with a non-trivial amount of company stock is, strictly speaking, an "owner of the means of production". Even if you want to quibble with that, their interests are certainly well-aligned with that group - to the point that you generally won't hear a peep out of them as things get more and more dystopian, because of what Upton Sinclair observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

> I must conclude you just enjoy a starving and undereducated mass of parents and children you look down upon for their poor moral character?

It's much simpler than that. It's pure, unadulterated "I got mine and you ain't touchin' it". There's no real thinking that goes beyond that purely selfish position. The consequences aren't seriously considered, they're just taken as part of the natural order. Any causal connection is denied, rationalized by accusations of laziness, inferiority, etc.

reply
You're right, it's probably just that. My mistake to read too deeply into someone like this.

I was using Marx's definition, and I am a member of that class, so defined.

My existing wealth and ongoing income of seven figures is derived almost entirely from capital accumulation.

I am knowingly and actively betraying my immediate class interest, here and elsewhere, because I'd rather my wealth increase more modestly to ensure we all live in vibrant society.

I do think it is foolish for salaried white collar workers not to see what is coming and begin unionization efforts; Their interests are ever more misaligned with capital with every year that passes.

reply
How does missing the point and going on an unrelated rant help ensure we live in a vibrant society? Because I’m missing that part.
reply
His comment implies that people who use free services don't value them, they are naturally disrespectful, they are 'ripping off' hard workers, and are 'refusing to pay'. These are not neutral terms, they have historically (since Reagan at least) conservative valence.

'welfare queens' etc...

If you didn't notice this sleight of hand in the original comment, that means he did his work correctly.

His conclusion is that things should not be free and open, as a rule, because they won't generate money, attention, or respect if they are free.

He included food stamps in the middle of his list. This choice is not neutral.

The comment invites you to reframe your understanding of food stamps so as to later justify its dissolution as a result 'human nature'.

Food stamps are not intended to function like the other products he listed. Food stamps are not intended to generate respect or direct revenue.

Yet, he said that someone using the 'max' monthly budget of $300 for food, when making less that $26000, is part of the 'natural disrespect' continuum. Tell me, would you consider $300 a month on food excessive and disrespectful where you live? $3.30 per meal, 3 times a day for 30.5 days?

The whole structure of his 'disrespect' argument is a lie to begin with. People on food stamps do respect the value of being able to feed their families.

Most Americans I've met see their need for food stamps as a moral stain. They want so badly to overcome their 'failure' by working even harder. Many will take second or third jobs with tenuous protections, and have their wages stolen ($2600 per person, on average, almost as much as food stamps pays).

Either way, productivity goes up, inflation marches on, wages stay the same, and I'm the only one getting richer.

Anywho that is why I replied in the manner I did, because the subtext was clearly hidden well enough for many people to need it pointed out.

You are not immune to propaganda, doubly so for the propaganda you don't notice.

reply
[dead]
reply
Seems you have good intention at heart and clearly care about people, and from my observation have some emotional processing and clearing to do to avoid sounding like you are lashing out at whoever internet stranger could fit your mold of comfort to emotionally dump on.

Have you considered channeling that energy into advocacy or volunteerism? I feel you'd like that.

reply
Incredible troll lol. "Have you considered volunteering?" In response to frustration at a massive federal initiative being shut down is hilarious.
reply
Now, I'm not gonna endorse the original position, but on some level it's also a non-troll. Enough time spent at a soup kitchen will turn just about anybody into Ron Paul. If you want someone to have realistic opinions on social welfare programs based on their actual impact in reality and not emotion and indoctrination then putting them into an organization that's actually trying to maximize good done for their budget and/or in contact with the recipients is a good way to do it.
reply
In my experience the more time I spent volunteering the less of a libertarian I became. Structural problems require structural solutions, and the market can only solve some of them.

In any case, his reply didn't even address the main point and was very condescending. I respect the troll o7

reply