There’s been a lot of fuss and feathers about the Salonarticle “Hipsters on Food Stamps,” which describes the rise of 20-something artists who are now eligible for food assistance and and are using their benefits to float through a difficult recession, Perrier in hand.
The hipsters (read: bohemian-types in places like Brooklyn and Baltimore) defend themselves by saying they’ve been as hurt as anyone during these tough economic times. They meet the eligibility guidelines for food stamps, and they’re using that government subsidy wisely — by spending it on nutrient-rich food they cook at home.
Others are complaining that these lazy artists and writers and are spending taxpayer dollars on dinner parties and artisan cheeses.
Hipsters using food stamps is a new phenomenon, but the argument is as old as charity itself: if we’re going to give out benefits, and there’s not enough for everyone, whom do we help? On one hand, we might give assistance to the poorest of the poor who need the most help. On the other, shouldn’t we help those who just need a little leg up, temporary help that can get them out of a jam and back into economic productivity?
Where does our money do the most good? (I’m guessing few people would answer “Whole Foods.”)
We get angry with people who buy soda and chips with their food stamps. We get angry with those who buy organic produce. The bottom line is, we’re uncomfortable talking about poverty.
Here, we have a class of people with education and skills, but they’re still in the unemployment line. When there are six unemployed people for every one job available, we know we’ve got a problem. This recession has blurred our former class lines, pulling a lot of people who used to be in the middle class on down. At the same time, the people who were already low-income have sunk to no-income.
For both these groups, food stamps are one of the easiest, most direct forms of assistance our government can provide. Unlike welfare or unemployment, we can control what they do with it. The spending helps grocery stores stay in business, and whether that’s Whole Foods or Save-A-Lot, that means keeping other people employed.
When we talk about government subsidies, we need to remember that food stamps help a lot more than the people who eat the food they provide — whether that’s Ding Dongs or crème brulee. Right now, we need people to spend. We need them to be able to pay their rent or their mortgages, so society doesn’t absorb the much larger costs of homeless shelters and food pantries.
The cost of food stamps is much lower than the cost of more foreclosures, less consumer spending and more people on the street.
Food stamps we can afford. We can’t afford what happens without them.
