Without trying to sound crass, food banks _are_ the reason we don't see people dying of starvation in first world countries. If people need food, a food bank will give it to them no questions asked.
Unfortunately this is not just precarious, it's extremely vulnerable to changing political conditions. Many of the food bank services in my state have lost significant funding owing to the use of words like 'women' or 'black' in their grants, which were duly grepped for and shut down.
Is it not sufficient? Americans give more to charity than citizens of any other developed country. The arguments that all food aid should be routed through government bureaucracies are entirely unconvincing. I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes.
This is what happens when you don't think through a problem completely.
>I'd rather donate to organizations like Second Harvest than pay higher taxes.
I'm sure you would. And when economic hard times come you'll stop donating, and the people that need it the most will kick your door in and take what food you have to live another day, even at the risk of you shooting them because they'll die either way.
Hence the argument of 'just donate' are just as unconvincing to me.
It is my understanding that this claim about Americans' charitable giving does not disaggregate giving to food banks, Girl Scout cookie drives, political causes, the environment, cultural events, religious institutions, etc. Much of this charitable giving does not feed the hungry or house the homeless.
Plus the fact that there’s bias in the first place - citizens in a country where they know social programs will care for their needy would not need to donate.
Does this account for the portion of taxes that go to the type of efforts that donations do? If not, is it really giving more? OR is it giving less and feeling better about it?
On average, Americans donate 1-2% of income, while spending 7-20% less on contributions to government.
On the other hand, Americans receive less for the government, and spend more on caring for themselves (health care) than Europeans receive from the government.
To sort that you, you'd have to figure out how cost-efficient the two models are, for services provided.
We used to live in a world where individual virtue was what everyone fell back on. That is the default state. It has many problems -- free riding by the selfish, for one, but also a lack of capacity to prepare for large-scale disasters like the Great Depression. We have a government precisely to solve this sort of problem. It works (when it is competent and not corrupt) for defense, international trade, and the enforcement of law. Solving resource distribution and aid coordination is right in its wheelhouse.
The fact food banks exist suggest over all food scarcity is solved in that specific culture. - if it wasn't there wouldn't be any spare food for a food bank
Food is allocated using a variety of mechanisms in peaceful first world countries, primarily money but also via government assistance, kinship, friendship, community, etc.
At any given time many people have problems with one or more of those systems. Money is easy to run out of because it's used for everything, the government can be slow and difficult, relationships can fray, people can be isolated, etc. Food banks exist as a backstop for when the regular means of allocating are not working.
The problem isn't "scarcity" per se, it's more of an allocation thing. Who has a claim on enough food to stay alive? Everyone! But what foods can they claim? How much? What specific channel / institution (with associated allocation rules) will distribute it to them? What are the conditions and controls? etc.
Allocating things can be difficult. An allocation mechanism with no controls will see fraud, waste and abuse. Even when an institution is willing to give things away no questions asked, there are (often invisible until you think about them) conditions like "please don't claim huge quantities and resell what we're giving you, that would be unfair to others".
It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.
It's circular to say "it's an allocation problem". Yes, that's the entire point: we're post-scarcity on food supply and yet, as a species, we can't guarantee the allocation of a livable baseline to every person.
So, it's reasonable the same "allocation problem" will plague the AI economy: some will "thrive" and get to control the output of the auto-factory, some will get nothing.
> It's also interesting to think about the fact that you can't fix food scarcity in general by simply giving hungry people money, because money is too fungible.
Is that a fact? Do you have references to back it?
The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication. This is pretty normal in some poor communities and that cash is commonly diverted to various vices. Some malnutrition is a consequence of this. Adding friction to the conversion of welfare benefits to cash is a feature.
You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't. It isn't a moral judgement but an observable fact. A lot of policies around welfare are targeted at trying to prevent this minority from slowly killing themselves in public.
> The widespread existence of secondary markets for SNAP benefits, which convert subsidized food for poor people into cash, carries this implication.
I think “widespread secondary markets” is carrying a lot of implications… yes, people do sell food stamps for cash, and yes it technically happens over a large area (the US) but it’s far from a significant problem within the population that uses food stamps. Most estimates I’ve seen range between 2-5% and they all tend to overestimate (like it literally says that in their methodology).
I think it’s also bizarre to assume they’re trying to kill themselves by doing so, and thereby imply the proceeds are for things like drugs or alcohol. FWIW—- I’ve know folks who sold their excess food stamps, to help pay for their cell phone or utility bills. I’ve know folks who buy them because they’re poor and they are wholly unable to get the caloric needs with their monthly allocation. And yes, I’ve also seen some folks who are likely selling them to buy drugs or alcohol… my point is it’s naive to assume it’s always for self-harm.
If anything, considering how cheap food stamps are as a program for the federal budget— we could absolutely make food free for literally everyone in the US. That would absolutely curb the secondary markets[1] as there would no longer be a market.
[1] I suppose some sort of export of shelf stable food to other countries would pop up, but that requires an international logistics network and is easier to prosecute and fight than an individual outside a grocery store.
No one implied the intent was self-harm. The observation is that was the manifest result.
I’ve lived in serious poverty in many parts of the US, more than most people imagine exists. I’m not hypothesizing, I have first-hand knowledge. The evidence is so overwhelming that I shouldn’t have to play that card. It is disappointing the extent to which people will deny this reality for ideological reasons against all evidence.
Poverty is a mixed bag but the policies there, as with everywhere else, are defined by the worst cases. A significant subset of people in poverty cannot be trusted with their own welfare. That is a fact.
It still burns me if I stop and think about it when I'm paying taxes so someone can
spend their EBT at Whole Foods and I'm shopping at Trader Joe's though.I don't know how to reconcile that with the fact that I don't want people to go hungry so I'm happy to pay my taxes and have it go towards EBT.
> You can't force poor people to spend cash on proper nutrition and a minority of them don't.
Sure on a large enough cohort, there will always be all kinds of behaviours. This is true, as you have observed yourself, regardless of whether the benefit is paid in cash or food.
I mean it's pretty straight forward that this won't fix all hungry people as some portion of said hungry people are addicted to drugs in the extent they'll starve. That in itself may be solvable by things like free drug clinics (drugs are cheap, it's prohibition that makes them expensive).
And for the most part it's not the drug users that we're worried about starving, it's their children at home that tend to be a bigger issue. Hence things like free school lunches do a big service to ensuring they get enough to eat.