Amazon offering discounted Prime membership for folks on welfare

[Angel Eyes]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/6/discounted-amazon-prime-now-available-ebt-recipien/

Since Amazon is a private-sector company, they are free to set such a policy if they wish. 

But . . . if you need a .gov handout to put food on your table, perhaps a Prime membership should not be a priority.

[Ben]

As you say, Amazon being private, I have no problem with them offering that. As a taxpayer though, I'd like to see the gov deny that ability on the EBT. That $72/yr can buy a lot of beans and rice, and I question why EBT cardholders need prime delivery when so much of Amazon has free delivery. If you're shopping on my dime, you can damn well wait 5-7 days for your stuff.

[lee n. field]

I wonder (didn't read the link yet) if this is gov't subsidized.

All part of the bread and circus ration.

[dogmush]

I actually kind of like it.

They can't actually use the EBT on Amazon, and the Prime membership gets them access to things like Prime Pantry (costco/sams like pricing on big items, but delivered super cheap) and Prime Now (food and household items delivered quick)  which could go a long way mitigating the "food/supermarket desert" argument.  It'll be good for places like Ferguson.  No one's going to burn/loot the distribution center 35 miles away.

If one doesn't have a car and has to ride a bus 35 min to Wal-Mart, Prime would be pretty attractive for lots of things.

Of course the next article will be about a huge increase in Amazon packages being stolen from porches.

[Scout26]

I'm with Ben.  They need to only be able to toilet paper in bulk, while US Agency for Beans, Rice and Gruel (USABRG) delivers sacks of the aforementioned on a bi-weekly basis.

Right now the only exercise many of these folks get is hoofin' it to the local stores...

[RevDisk]

If one is hurting for cash, Prime is a very good deal. It isn't just delivery. It's TV, music, movies, photo storage, books and audiobooks. It's a very decent value. $72/yr is cheaper than Netflix, and Netflix is far cheaper than most entertainment sources. I'm aware that some folks here at under the impression that the poor should suffer in quiet shame, but humans tend to not want to be miserable. Cheap, high grade entertainment plus access to cheap bulk products is a good thing.

It's an overall good thing for Amazon. I'm glad they did something mildly nice for folks without a lot of cash.

[makattak]

I wonder (didn't read the link yet) if this is gov't subsidized.

All part of the bread and circus ration.

I didn't read this link, but from others I've read, it's not government subsidized. It is, however, intended to get them on prime and using their government benefits to purchase goods from Amazon instead of Walmart.

So it's subsidized by Amazon in order to get access to government subsidies.

[Ben]

If one is hurting for cash, Prime is a very good deal. It isn't just delivery. It's TV, music, movies, photo storage, books and audiobooks. It's a very decent value. $72/yr is cheaper than Netflix, and Netflix is far cheaper than most entertainment sources. I'm aware that some folks here at under the impression that the poor should suffer in quiet shame, but humans tend to not want to be miserable. Cheap, high grade entertainment plus access to cheap bulk products is a good thing.

It's an overall good thing for Amazon. I'm glad they did something mildly nice for folks without a lot of cash.

Rev, I have to say that seems to be a bit of a generalization on both sides. Most of us don't want the poor to suffer "in quiet shame". We do want the poor to not stagnate in comfort. At least the poor that we are paying to support. If someone is poor but not on welfare, I could care less if they spend their money on spinner rims instead of food for their kids. I wish they wouldn't, but it's their freedom of choice.

If I'm paying for someone, no, I don't want them to have all the comforts that otherwise come with hard work and good decisions. Because what incentives do they have to move towards self support?

As for the benefits of Prime, most can be replicated for free via the library and Internet (available for free at the library). There are tons of good free books at Gutenberg, and no, I don't find it a punishment for someone to have Shakespeare available but not Stephen King (though the library will have King). There are tons of free music sources as well. As far as Prime delivery,  I go back to my first post. I will agree that some people live far enough away from purchase choices that delivery is a good, or the best option. But I reiterate that there is no reason they can't wait five days for their stuff.

I know people that have middle class jobs and are self supporting that don't have Prime because they can't justify it in their budget. If self-supporting people can make the decision to opt for "standard delivery" and using free options instead of the benefits that Prime offers, then people I support should be able to suck it up as well. Again, if someone poor that is not on some gov benefit wants to get Prime, good for them. In fact maybe Amazon would have done better to make the qualification an income ceiling versus people on gov assistance. That way the poor that are trying to get by on their own could use the reduced cost benefit.

[makattak]

In fact maybe Amazon would have done better to make the qualification an income ceiling versus people on gov assistance. That way the poor that are trying to get by on their own could use the reduced cost benefit.

They might have, but since the government has already done the qualification through the government assistance (though people who qualify for assistance but refuse to take it are left out), Amazon is using a cheap screening method. (As in, costs them almost nothing.)

[Ben]

They might have, but since the government has already done the qualification through the government assistance (though people who qualify for assistance but refuse to take it are left out), Amazon is using a cheap screening method. (As in, costs them almost nothing.)

I recognize that from the business side, but was looking more at if they really wanted to do "social justice" (which it seems this is about), the fair (but more expensive for them) way would be to include the poor that are fighting to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

I mean, they give "student Prime", which plenty of kids get while driving around in the BMW gifted to them by their parents, even though (from my understanding) Amazon's intent was to help "poor students".

[Scout26]

If one is hurting for cash, Prime is a very good deal. It isn't just delivery. It's TV, music, movies, photo storage, books and audiobooks. It's a very decent value. $72/yr is cheaper than Netflix, and Netflix is far cheaper than most entertainment sources. I'm aware that some folks here at under the impression that the poor should suffer in quiet shame, but humans tend to not want to be miserable. Cheap, high grade entertainment plus access to cheap bulk products is a good thing.

It's an overall good thing for Amazon. I'm glad they did something mildly nice for folks without a lot of cash.

I don't think the poor should "suffer", but allowing them to reside in comfort does nothing to get them to improve their situation.   I'm all for helping those that hit a bump in the road or a roadblock.  I will gladly help them go over, around, or through.  But I don't like those that decide that that is as far as they are going, and expect society to carry them.  Being laid-off at some point is something that happens to pretty much everyone in the middle class at some point (Mergers, Acquisitions, Down-sizings, Right-sizings, Reorganizations, or whatever the current buzzword is).  The fact is, that very, very few people hire on with a company after they've completed school and stick around long enough to get the gold watch.   I've been through two companies being sold, one company acquiring another, and one subsidiary being sold off.   In a two cases, I saw the handwriting on the wall, and pulled the rip cord.  In the other two, I (and a bunch of other folks) were blindsided.  Ehhhh. 

So having walked in those shoes, I understand, and am willing to help those that had it happen to them. Again, as long as they are doing what they can to find wrok and boot-strap themselves up, even if it means taking a job well below their skill-set (like fast food), just have something coming in.


What I disagree with is sittin' around luxuriatin' in a Section 8 apartment watching cable on a 65" flatscreen, with an EBT card in hand, waiting for your check to come so you can go to the nail salon, and then swinging by McD's on your way home for dinner. 

If you want to do that on your dime, I could not care less.  However, on my dime, then I have a say in how that money should be spent.

Which is why I think beans, rice, and gruel should be the food supplied, as it provides the incentive for better.   I'm not saying people should starve, but without incentives, there is no reason to better oneself.





 

[AJ Dual]

Bets on when Amazon quietly discontinues the program because package theft losses get too high, as do false claims of non-delivery, FedEx and UPS problems in certain zip codes, or increased shipping costs because they require two drivers, because one always has to stay with the truck?

[Boomhauer]

They are just targeting the people that have spending money since their other needs are taken care of us...if my housing, food, and medical was picked up by the taxpayers too I'd damn well have a ton to spend on frivolous *expletive deleted*it.