As you can infer from the graph above, the number of New York City food-stamp recipients has risen by approximately a half million more people since 2009. Due to the recession and the loss of jobs in recent years, the demand for government assistance has risen dramatically. While the demand for food-stamps rose, the number of workers to aid these recipients stayed relatively the same. Therefore, the excessive load of recipients compared to workers available to aid them has resulted in slower services and longer wait times.
Based on the situation, there are a few possible solutions to this problem. One solution would be to cut the number of recipients to the food-stamp aid, however, these people obviously, or to some degree, need the assistance and denying people help is morally wrong. The city council members questioned the finger imaging process used as being more of a delay. Thus another solution being to shorten the process of distributing food-stamps. Another solution would be to increase the supply of case workers to aid the growing number of recipients. This seems to be the best solution on terms of its marginal benefits outweighing its marginal costs. On one hand, you would cause the salary budgets of the workers to be redistributed and possibly lower wages. Also you would need to find workspace for the incoming workers. But on the other hand, not only will jobs be created, but the food-stamp dilemma would be solved. While there are other factors to be considered with this method, this method would stimulate the economy and give the recipients a faster and more efficient experience
You have quite a few good examples. One thing that comes to my mind is what incentives do such programs create. For those who have no other opportunities it is great to be able to offer this public support. This may not be true for all folks. How many people would find employment if the aid was not there? If it is a sufficient number, then how do we weigh those who are really gaining from those who could do without? Tough questions.
ReplyDelete