Amazon excepting SNAP???

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

If they are replacing a $50/month cable bill with a $79/year prime streaming bill, it could make a lot of sense.

...or getting pantry items and needed sundries shipped home for free rather than spending time and gas driving somewhere. I can see ways to use it wisely and helpfully.

But yes, it would require one to use good judgment.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

If they are replacing a $50/month cable bill with a $79/year prime streaming bill, it could make a lot of sense.

Cable? That's a luxury plus you need internet which isn't cheap.

Internet however is not a luxury anymore. You need it for work. You need it to find a job. Now for those who can't afford even that there is the library or job center with computer access but still it's best to have 24/7 access. So you can check email and network. Many companies only email you to set up interviews. It's just cheaper to pay $50 a month for cell and data plan but depending on your job you may need regular internet for training which cost anywhere from $50 to $80 a month.

As for entertainment. There's the library and there is local TV.

Those on SNAP qualify for a dumb phone with 200 to 300 minutes free a month depending which carrier you go with. However it's just phone/texting no internet. The phones are cheap little things.

Sent from my XT1528

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Prime seems to be a luxury, not a necessity--for anyone. I don't understand why people who are having financial challenges would sign up for Prime, even at the slightly reduced price.

Exactly. Netflix, Hulu and Prime are luxuries. You wouldn't sign up for them when you could use that money on something you really need. It makes no sense.



Sent from my XT1528

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Blossom

Cable? That's a luxury plus you need internet which isn't cheap.

Internet however is not a luxury anymore. You need it for work. You need it to find a job. Now for those who can't afford even that there is the library or job center with computer access but still it's best to have 24/7 access. So you can check email and network. Many companies only email you to set up interviews. It's just cheaper to pay $50 a month for cell and data plan but depending on your job you may need regular internet for training which cost anywhere from $50 to $80 a month.

As for entertainment. There's the library and there is local TV.

Those on SNAP qualify for a dumb phone with 200 to 300 minutes free a month depending which carrier you go with. However it's just phone/texting no internet. The phones are cheap little things.

Sent from my XT1528

Once again you are smart but not all people on SNAP think the way you do.

Here is the thing, if there weren't enough people that would go for it, then Amazon wouldn't be offering it.
Oh and next time, you are at SNAP, please count the number of people using dumb phones and how many have smart phones. Just as a curiosity.
I figure one of us will be surprised. Not sure which one.

My internet is not connected to my DISH bill. Never has been. No, internet is not cheap, but if need be I could get rid of the tv. My internet is $50 a month.

As per needing home internet, that is debatable. My cheap smart phone was $100. I pay $47 a month (no contract and prepaid), I can check my email on it easily.
There are now places that offer smart phones with their plans for about the same price as my payment.

What one person considers a luxury, another may consider a necessity.

I do completely understand your point of view having been down that road a time or two myself though it was before internet days.
I have also seen more things than I care to remember. Both from myself and talking to others.

Now if we want to talk about ripping off the poor, I have 3 words for you.
Rent to own.

And can we please change the thread title to better reflect what Amazon is actually doing.
Which is neither excepting or accepting SNAP.

[ZodWallop]

I suspect some people on here have very unrealistic views about folks that have SNAP benefits. I grew up on them when they were called food stamps. I lived in government subsidized housing and we would have those big blocks of government cheese in our fridge. We did have cable, since we lived out in Laguna Hills, which, at the time, was the sticks. Everyone that lived in our development had cable, since your only other option was snow. Internet wasn't a thing then, but I'd guess that the people that live there now do have it.

People on SNAP aren't the little match girl or Dickensian characters. They aren't welfare queens, driving their gold Cadillacs to the walfare office either. From my experience, they are families (or severely handicapped individuals) living in circumstances where they need a little help to get by. And I can assure you that even when paying with food stamps, they do compare prices

The discounted Prime could be a good deal for people with limited income. It could replace the cable bill (if they have one) and save on gasoline as well.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I suspect some people on here have very unrealistic views about folks that have SNAP benefits. I grew up on them when they were called food stamps. I lived in government subsidized housing and we would have those big blocks of government cheese in our fridge. We did have cable, since we lived out in Laguna Hills, which, at the time, was the sticks. Everyone that lived in our development had cable, since your only other option was snow. Internet wasn't a thing then, but I'd guess that the people that live there now do have it.

People on SNAP aren't the little match girl or Dickensian characters. They aren't welfare queens, driving their gold Cadillacs to the walfare office either. From my experience, they are families (or severely handicapped individuals) living in circumstances where they need a little help to get by. And I can assure you that even when paying with food stamps, they do compare prices

The discounted Prime could be a good deal for people with limited income. It could replace the cable bill (if they have one) and save on gasoline as well.

I figure all 3 of us are correct.
I agree most are responsible and do think but there is always that 10-20%.

Now where can we find commodities? I bet that cheese would make excellent pimento cheese.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I figure all 3 of us are correct.
I agree most are responsible and do think but there is always that 10-20%.

Now where can we find commodities? I bet that cheese would make excellent pimento cheese.

My problem is that all too often people use the 10% you are talking about (and I doubt it is as high as 10%) and use that as an excuse to cut funding.

Thank goodness my brother and I made it out. But I never gripe about my taxes and would never want to see programs for the poor cut because "they're all using their smartphones to order luxury items from Amazon."

I'll stop replying to the thread, because it'll be too easy to make it political. I'm just very tender on the subject of what people on SNAP/welfare can and should be able to afford.

As for the government cheese, looks like it was phased out in the nineties.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My problem is that all too often people use the 10% you are talking about (and I doubt it is as high as 10%) and use that as an excuse to cut funding.

Thank goodness my brother and I made it out. But I never gripe about my taxes and would never want to see programs for the poor cut because "they're all using their smartphones to order luxury items from Amazon."

I'll stop replying to the thread, because it'll be too easy to make it political. I'm just very tender on the subject of what people on SNAP/welfare can and should be able to afford.

As for the government cheese, looks like it was phased out in the nineties.

I do hope my 1% is more accurate on the users of the system.
I do figure about 10% do use Amazon and in the case of the elderly/handicapped/people that don't own a vehicle, that $6 would be well spent especially at the price of fuel in some areas.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Prime seems to be a luxury, not a necessity--for anyone. I don't understand why people who are having financial challenges would sign up for Prime, even at the slightly reduced price.

In that case you wouldn't believe the many "odd" things people with limited funds buy.

This is one demographic that would really benefit from the Prime perks, especially the transportation-challenged. The savings over neighborhood store prices are substantial enough but the value of fast free delivery is not to be underestimated. Just remember, Amazon sells groceries and other essentials not just "luxuries".

This not a bad thing.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I do hope my 1% is more accurate on the users of the system.
I do figure about 10% do use Amazon and in the case of the elderly/handicapped/people that don't own a vehicle, that $6 would be well spent especially at the price of fuel in some areas.

Agreed.
Plus there is the matter of availability. Rural dwellers are among Amazon's biggest customer bases. Because the alternative isn't paying more but rather doing without.

[fjtorres]

As to why Amazon is doing this:

1-

Wal-Mart generated about $13 billion in sales last year from shoppers using*the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP,*accounting for around 18% of the money spent through the program nationwide. Those customers also spend additional income while in Wal-Mart stores.

About 30% of the approximately 44 million SNAP recipients have access to Prime via a subscription, free trial or family member, according to Kantar.

Amazon also introduced "Amazon Cash" earlier this year, which lets customers add cash to their account balance at more than 10,000 physical locations around the country.

Food-stamp grocery purchases are set for an overhaul with a new test allowing online food stamp payment. Amazon and Wal-Mart are among 10 in a two-year pilot by the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to start next year.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...-shoppers.html

2- It wasn't that long ago that Amazon algorithms proved to be a wee bit too efficient at identifying Prime subscriber neighborhoods.

https://www.boston.com/news/business...very-exclusion

So there's both economic and political reasons at play.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

As to why Amazon is doing this:

1-



http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/...-shoppers.html

2- It wasn't that long ago that Amazon algorithms proved to be a wee bit too efficient at identifying Prime subscriber neighborhoods.

https://www.boston.com/news/business...very-exclusion

So there's both economic and political reasons at play.

According to your quote: that means roughly 13.2 million SNAP users already use prime. My estimate was way off.
That is a potential of over $75 million a month.

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

2- It wasn't that long ago that Amazon algorithms proved to be a wee bit too efficient at identifying Prime subscriber neighborhoods.

https://www.boston.com/news/business...very-exclusion

Wow, that was missing the forest for the trees on Amazon's part. They were micromanaging what areas got the same-day delivery so much that they failed to notice this glaring discrepancy in Boston, and then after being alerted stubbornly stuck to their guns at first. They should've realised ahead of time that if a larger area is getting the service in most of its smaller sections, if the 'left out' section is noticeably minority or lower-income or even simply just completely encircled by sections receiving the service then an uproar and bad publicity would likely follow.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by Blossom

This is ridiculous. Does Amazon think people who get SNAP can afford Prime even at $6+tax a month!?!

Walmart is a B&M store that has some of the lowest prices on food. People shop there because of that.

All you can get on SNAP is food items and seeds for edible plants. What do they hope to achieve?



Sent from my XT1528

Maybe some people on SNAP are disabled, don't have a car, or otherwise find it hard to go to a store?

Or possibly, they are sharing someone else's Prime account, like a friend or family member?

Not sure why the indignation.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by sun surfer

Wow, that was missing the forest for the trees on Amazon's part. They were micromanaging what areas got the same-day delivery so much that they failed to notice this glaring discrepancy in Boston, and then after being alerted stubbornly stuck to their guns at first. They should've realised ahead of time that if a larger area is getting the service in most of its smaller sections, if the 'left out' section is noticeably minority or lower-income or even simply just completely encircled by sections receiving the service then an uproar and bad publicity would likely follow.

Some silly data analyst probably mistakenly thought their job was to accurately analyse data rather than try to skew and/or ignore it for political correctness. I'm sure they were disabused of that notion.