HomePostTopic: Erik Randolph

Erik Randolph

Reforming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program can help families get short-term help without discouraging long-term goals for work and financial independence.

Key Points

  • SNAP’s benefit cliffs discourage work and career growth by abruptly cutting off assistance when recipients earn even modest income increases, trapping families in financial instability and reducing workforce participation.
  • Proposed reforms aim to eliminate benefit cliffs through gradual benefit reductions, clear exit points, and adjusted benefit levels, encouraging financial independence without penalizing career advancement.
  • Comprehensive SNAP reform benefits all stakeholders, empowering workers, stabilizing families, addressing labor shortages for businesses, and potentially reducing program costs by $30 billion annually.

Benefit cliffs discourage work and trap families in long-term financial struggles. A new policy solution offers a way out.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the largest anti-poverty programs in the U.S., providing over 41 million Americans with critical food assistance in 2024. But for many recipients, a system designed to support often ends up trapping—with significant barriers known as benefit cliffs.

These cliffs occur when small increases in income result in recipients suddenly losing their SNAP assistance, leaving them in a worse financial position for working more hours or earning an income boost. For example, a single parent’s modest hourly raise might lead to a benefit cut that completely offsets their increased take-home pay.

The negative ripple effects extend far beyond individuals and households. Benefit cliffs reduce workforce participation and make it harder for plenty of small businesses and industries to find the workers they need to grow and serve customers.

A new proposal for reform, developed with research by Erik Randolph at the Georgia Center for Opportunity in collaboration with Angela Rachidi of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), offers a way to dismantle SNAP benefit cliffs and restore the program’s original mission—helping families achieve financial independence and stability.

A new SNAP reform report from American Enterprise Institute and Georgia Center for Opportunity shows how improve access to work and reduce costs to taxpayers.

SNAP’s design discourages career growth among recipients

SNAP is meant to help low-income families put food on the table. But the system unintentionally penalizes those who pursue better wages or career opportunities.

For many recipients, earning extra income—not just large raises but even modest increases as one gains skills or works more hours—means abruptly losing SNAP benefits altogether. Instead of slowly tapering down, benefits “fall off a cliff” as income rises.

This financial disincentive creates a dilemma for households relying on SNAP. While accepting additional shifts or applying for a higher-paying position could signify career growth, it may financially set them back without SNAP assistance offsetting basic expenses.

The economic impact is widespread. With fewer prime-age workers, employers encounter labor shortages, and their ability to operate efficiently is compromised. Workforce productivity also declines when workers are stuck in part-time, lower-skilled jobs rather than advancing to higher economic opportunities. The result is a cycle that makes it harder for families to break free from reliance on public assistance programs.

New SNAP reform proposals offer a way forward

Research by AEI and GCO outlines actionable steps to eliminate benefit cliffs while maintaining SNAP costs close to historical levels. These recommendations include changes to critical factors within the program’s structure to allow for a smoother, gradual reduction in benefits as income rises.

Key reforms involve adjusting the following elements of SNAP’s benefit system:

  • Adjust participants’ cost-sharing responsibilities. The proposed plan would reduce the benefit reduction rate from 30% to 18%, making it easier for families to transition off benefits.
  • Cost-sharing should begin as soon as income increases. Right now, deductions delay cost-sharing, which creates benefits cliffs when income limits run out. The new plan is a middle ground, starting benefit reductions earlier but at a lower rate. While it might lower benefits for many families, benefit cliffs are eliminated or reduced.

These structural adjustments effectively close the gap between earned income and benefit loss, removing financial penalties for participants who work more hours or accept higher-paying opportunities.

A win for workers, families, small businesses, and taxpayers

Simplifying and improving SNAP’s benefit structure solves major labor market challenges. For recipients, reforms encourage workforce participation and career advancement, empowering them to climb the economic ladder without fear of a financial setback.

For employers, these changes help restore a steady supply of available workers, addressing hiring difficulties in industries that rely on hourly, shift-based, or entry-level staff. Additionally, SNAP reform creates fiscal balance while allowing the government to save money long term—potentially reducing program expenses by 27% or $30 billion annually.

GCO continues to investigate ways to improve safety-net programs to help families escape poverty, and these recommendations for SNAP are an important piece of those efforts. Employment is one of the most reliable ways to break cycles of poverty, yet benefit cliffs trap too many families in stagnant economic conditions. Eliminating these barriers will strengthen the workforce, stabilize families, and create economic momentum that benefits us all.

Download the full report from American Enterprise Institute and Georgia Center for Opportunity here.

Key Points

  • Research Indicating SNAP Benefits Are Too Low: Urban Institute tool suggests that the average cost of a meal exceeds the maximum SNAP benefit, emphasizing the potential inadequacy of the program.
  • Concerns About Research Methodology: Emphasizes that SNAP is meant to supplement, not replace, food purchases, and spending habits should be expected to exceed the lowest-cost food budget when households have income.
  • Drawbacks of Raising SNAP Maximum Benefits: Highlights the fiscal irresponsibility of increasing SNAP benefits amidst a large federal deficit and national debt, which could contribute to inflation and rising price levels.

Recent studies are raising concerns about whether the help provided by the Food Stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is sufficient. This program, which served 41.2 million people in the Fiscal Year 2022, is the biggest food assistance initiative in the United States.

But before you call your congressperson, let’s take a closer look at the research that suggests SNAP benefits might be too low.

The Research Findings

The Urban Institute has developed a tool indicating the average cost of a “modestly-priced” meal often exceeds the maximum SNAP benefit allotted for a meal. For instance, in the last quarter of 2022, the average “modestly-priced” meal cost was $3.14, surpassing the calculated maximum SNAP benefit of $2.74 for a meal in the 48 contiguous states.

To make matters more complicated, food prices vary across the country. The tool allows users to see how the maximum food benefit falls short in different counties. According to the Urban Institute, the maximum SNAP benefit covered the cost of a modestly- priced meal in only 27 out of 3,143 counties, or just 1 percent of the total.

Other organizations, such as the Brookings Institute, share similar concerns about the adequacy of SNAP benefits, putting pressure on Congress to consider increasing the program’s maximum benefit.

Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

It’s essential to be cautious, though, as the research might be comparing different things. The maximum SNAP benefit is based on the Thrifty Food Plan, intended to be the lowest-cost food budget while still providing necessary nutrition for a family. In fact, it is the lowest cost budget produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which begs the question of how the Urban Institute is defining a modestly priced meal.

The Urban Institute’s calculation of a “modestly priced meal” is based on the spending habits of households at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, but who were also considered to be “food secure.”

It should be expected The Thrifty Food Plan is lower than the actual expenditures of this demographic group because, as the name suggests (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), SNAP is meant to supplement, not replace, food purchases. As households earn income, it’s expected they will spend more on food than what the minimum budget allows.

Why Is There Still Food Insecurity?

Food insecurity is determined by using answers to the Current Population Survey, but the determination doesn’t specifically address the adequacy of the SNAP maximum benefit. Other factors, like spending habits, diets, and dealing with the stress of poverty, also play a role. It’s important to note that the U.S. faces an obesity problem, even among SNAP participants, suggesting that the issue may not be too few calories but rather poor eating habits.

However, the obesity problem probably has more to do with more nutrition education, better eating habits, and improved financial literacy for participants rather than the program itself.

The Solution: Congress should reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) so that more households can easily overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises and achieve self-sufficiency faster.  

Learn More

SNAP, TANF, welfare, benefits, benefits cliffs

The Solution: Congress should reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) so that more households can easily overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises and achieve self-sufficiency faster.  

Learn More

Negatives of Increasing Benefits

While some might think increasing SNAP benefits is harmless, there are negative consequences to consider. It can affect upward economic mobility for participants ready to leave the program, making it more costly with unwanted economic side effects.

A recent study highlighted a benefit cliff problem in SNAP, where households lose more total income than gained from increased earnings. The study identifies the importance of controlling the maximum benefit to solve benefit cliffs and marriage penalties.

Benefit cliffs are a big problem for households trying to stop relying on safety-net assistance programs. They face an unfair choice between being worse off financially and giving up their long-term goals of moving up economically through steady work. After vulnerable people get help from the safety net, government assistance should help them move forward, not hold them back.

Considering the cost of the program is also important. In the fiscal year 2022, the federal government spent $120 billion on the Food Stamp program. However, the government had a $1.4 trillion deficit, increasing the national debt to over $32 trillion. This financial irresponsibility is a major reason for inflation and higher prices, which impact those on safety-net programs the most.

The Best Strategy Forward

Increasing the maximum SNAP benefit should be approached cautiously to balance adequate nutrition for families while controlling program costs. The Urban Institute’s definition of a reasonably priced meal falls short because they are measuring the wrong aspects when compared to the criteria set for the maximum allotment. There seems to be a methodology problem in their approach.  It’s extremely important to get the number right to ensure adequate nutrition for families but in a way that is thrifty to keep program costs under control and to make it easier to fix benefit cliffs and mitigate marriage penalties.

Those concerned about low SNAP benefits should also consider that other assistance programs help participants, such as free school meals and food banks operated by non-profit organizations. Plus, state agencies that administer SNAP all have nutrition education programs to help participants know how to budget for nutritious food. The federal government also assists states in those efforts by providing tools, curricula, and a website. Ultimately, determining the adequacy of Food Stamp benefits should rely on nutrition science, consumer science, financial education, and thriftiness.

 

*Erik Randolph is the Director of Research for the Georgia Center for Opportunity.


*Monthly average for the fiscal year per program data tables of the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

trophies for teams

Georgia Center for Opportunity is  the winner of the Bob Williams Award for Outstanding Policy Achievement. Erik Randolph, Director of Research, lead the charge in undertaking a massive research project which highlights the harms of COVID restrictions which took place around the country. The award specifically recognizes those doing “exceptional work to create and disseminate credible policy research and ideas.”

Georgia Center for Opportunity has been one of the host organizations for the State Policy Network’s Annual Meeting which is being held this week in Atlanta, GA. This is a gathering of organizations working on a state-level to promote realistic solutions to policy. It’s also a time for our team to collaborate with like-minded people and be inspired by new ideas and tactics.



 

“Bob Williams Awards for Outstanding Policy Achievement recognize state think tanks doing exceptional work to help states implement solutions that expand personal freedom and opportunity for all Americans.”

 

SPNAM2022

“Bob Williams Awards for Outstanding Policy Achievement recognize state think tanks doing exceptional work to help states implement solutions that expand personal freedom and opportunity for all Americans.”

Reality is likely to be less rosy…

Some economists are hoping that inflation has peaked and will tick down in the coming months, after the pace of inflation slowed slightly in April. But Erik Randolph, director of research for the Georgia Center For Opportunity (GCO), warns that the reality is likely to be far less rosy.

“What we saw with the April Consumer Price Index was disinflation. That means the rate of inflation decreased but inflation is still occurring and our purchasing power is declining,” Randolph said. “Meanwhile, wage increases are lagging behind price increases. The vast majority of workers will have lower standardsof living because their budgets will not buy as much as in the recent past. Some workers will get handsome pay raises, but they will be the exception rather than the rule.

Erik - Inflation swells quote

What’s needed?

“The core problem here is that the price level has risen, setting a new floor for costs. The only way to lower the price level, by definition, is to allow for deflation. But our policymakers are afraid of deflation because of the economic schools of thought that they adhere to. What is needed is new economic thinking in Washington, D.C. from economists who are not afraid of deflation but recognize it’s the only way to bring the price level down that benefits the most people. The mess we’re in now are the signs of stagflation, meaning the rising price level may be soon accompanied with slower economic growth and loss of employment. The only way to mitigate that scenario would be to adopt policies to allow for supply-side growth.”

sad girl and mom

How to help working families the most

During a focus group session on working class families we recently conducted at the Georgia Center for Opportunity, Jazmine* made an observation more perceptive than most experts.

Our focus group consisted of working-class African-Americans who did not have a college degree and who were not employed in a managerial position nor on track to become a manager. 

Knowing financial stress up close, Jazmine essentially said that either the minimum wage should be increased or the cost of living should be lowered.

Her observation is a perfect segue from my prior blogs on:

 

The Success Sequence provides an outline of how to reverse the cycle of poverty in our communities. GCO uses this as a framework for much of our work.

Promoting Purchasing Power 

The Employment Act of 1946 declared it is the policy and responsibility of the federal government to:

         “promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.”

Promoting purchasing power means lowering the cost of living, as Jazmine suggested. 

Solidified in the 1951 Accord with the Treasury Department, the responsibility ultimately fell to the Federal Reserve to conduct monetary policy as we know it today.

How well has the Fed done with promoting purchasing power? Horribly, quite frankly.

Since 1951, prices have increased 3.4% annually on average, as measured by the geometric mean. In other words, the price level was tenfold higher in 2020 than in 1951. Prices doubled each generation.

It is widely accepted that the poor suffer most from inflation because they spend a higher portion of their income on necessities, and their income growth typically lags others. 

For example, according to the most recent mid-year consumer expenditure report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumers in the lowest income quintile spend 82.2 percent of their income on housing, transportation, food, and healthcare, compared to 64.4 percent for the highest quintile. A five percent inflation rate would cost those in the lowest quintile an additional $1,156 for these items on a budget that is already tight, averaging $28,141. A 10% inflation rate would double those costs to $2,312.

Worse, those in the lowest quintile are unable to save for their future, and inflation erodes away the value of the little savings they do have. Consider that on average, those in the lowest quintile purchased only $563 in personal insurance or toward their pensions, compared to $19,736 for those in the highest quintile. This disparity guarantees the poor will be inadequately prepared for retirement or unforeseen loss or tragedy.

 

inflation

Prior to the federal government taking on the responsibility of promoting purchasing power, prices not only remained fairly stable but actually decreased during times of relative peace. Typically, they only increased dramatically during times of war. 

This pattern can be seen visually in the accompanying chart using the Consumer Price Index and related data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. For example, the price level increased 24% due to the War of 1812 but then deflated 57% over 47 years until the start of the Civil War, even after accounting for a slight bump up due to the Mexican War. 

The pattern was similar for the remainder of the century. Prices increased 74% during the Civil War but then deflated 47% to its pre-Civil War level until the start of the 20th Century.*  Although the price level rose somewhat during the progressive era, it was still 30% lower at the start of World War I than at the close of the Civil War.

 

inflation 2

America’s inflationary policy 

Unfortunately, a 1978 law changed promoting purchasing power to become the lame “reasonable price stability,” which is not the same thing.

Over the years, the Fed has allowed inflation as a matter of policy. In 2012, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke explicitly stated for the first time an inflation target of 2% per year. If the Fed can somehow hold to this target, which it has not been able to do historically, it equates to doubling the price level every 35 years. Last August, it backed away from this policy. Because of all the pandemic spending and monetary expansions, the Fed approved a policy to allow inflation to rise “modestly” above its 2% target. 

It is not just the Fed that has shied away from promoting purchasing power. In 1978, and in the midst of the stagflation years, Congress legislated the modest goal that inflation should be 3% or less, but the target rate was supposed to come down to zero percent by 1988 unless it might have impeded employment.  

The Fed is not alone to blame for the inability of the federal government to control inflation. Congress’s lack of fiscal discipline resulting in soaring budget deficits place the Fed in a tenuous position to keep interest rates low so federal debt service costs also remain low. Furthermore, recent Fed direct purchases of Treasury debt because of all that federal spending adds to the money supply, eroding—not promoting—purchasing power.

 

How Congress can better help the average working family

If economics has any immutable law, it must be that you can’t get something out of nothing. This explains why the Consumer Price Index increased 5.4% since last year, as announced today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the rate of increase appears to be accelerating. The monthly rate was 0.6% in May but 0.9% in June. If this June inflation rate persists, and hopefully it does not, we will have double digit inflation. A 0.9% monthly rate equates to an 11.4 % annual rate.  

Considering all the recent deficit spending by Congress and expansionary policies by the Fed, expect more of the same, or worse. In fact, according to a survey of economists in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “Americans should brace themselves” because economists are waking up to the prospect of higher inflation, expecting “brisk price increases for a while.”

Economic history indicates deflation should be the norm. In fact, innovation spawns increased productivity that allows prices to fall, which should show up as deflation. We have the opposite: productivity gains with inflation. This outcome places the blame squarely on monetary and fiscal policy. 

In the meantime, Jazmine and other hard working Americans struggle to keep up with rising prices. Instead of pushing for increases in the minimum wage that help some at the expense of others, Congress needs to renew our nation’s purchasing power policy and get its fiscal house in order. 

 

 

 *Jazmine’s last name withheld for confidentiality.

 

*This is not intuitive. It takes a smaller percent decrease to offset a percent increase, such as a 43% reduction will offset a 74% increase. For example, suppose you receive a 20 percent pay raise this week, but next week you receive a 20 percent pay cut. Are you back where you started? The answer is no; you are worse off. If your weekly pay was $100, the increase took you to $120, but then your pay cut took you to $96, even lower than your starting point.

 

Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

 

homeless no job

Is there any reason not to cheer? Georgia’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 percent in May. 

Here are three reasons why this looks good for Georgia. 

First, the unemployment rate is declining, giving optimism that the economy is bouncing back from the pandemic.

Second, there were only two periods in recorded history when Georgia’s unemployment rate was this low or lower. Starting from 1976—the extent of available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on unemployment rates for the states—the first period was between October 1998 and July 2001 when the rate reached as low as 3.4 percent. This period occurred after the long economic expansion of the 1990s. 

The other period—from April 2018 to the start of the pandemic—just occurred with Donald Trump in the White House. During this period, Georgia broke its best record by achieving 3.3 percent.

Third, Georgia’s rate is the 16th lowest in the country, beating out 34 other states. For comparison, the United States as a whole has a rate of 5.8 percent rate, considerably higher than Georgia’s.

 

 

But wait. Is the unemployment rate artificially low?

While optimism is merited, it is important to put the unemployment numbers in perspective.

Unemployment percentages do not capture those who do not participate in the labor force. According to the BLS, anyone not employed who had not actively looked for a job during the prior four weeks is not part of the labor force. Therefore, any person temporarily not looking for work is not accounted for when the BLS calculates the official unemployment rate. Especially now with all the repercussions of the pandemic, all those potential workers who have been sitting on the sidelines for the last four weeks are simply not counted.

The behavior of labor force participation is a loose link for unemployment numbers. Normally, when economic times are good, sidelined workers and even retirees come back into the labor force, which can push the unemployment rate up. When times are bad, the opposite happens. Workers drop out of the labor force, artificially lowering the unemployment rate.

During the depth of the pandemic, and as expected, the labor force participation rate in Georgia dropped—to 59.4 percent to be precise, compared to 62.9 percent just prior to the pandemic. In terms of real people, there were an estimated 260,575 fewer workers participating in the labor force—who were not counted among the unemployed, to emphasize the point. Participation bounced back some to 61.7 percent, but still there are 40,934 fewer workers in the labor force.

Other ways to measure it

BLS’s U-6 labor underutilization metric is another way to shed light on unemployment. It adds to the unemployed those discouraged and other “marginally attached” workers as well as part-time workers wanting full-time work but cannot find it. 

Nationally, the U-6 rate hit a historic high of 22.9 percent in April 2020 representing 36.3 million people. It has since dropped to 10.2 percent representing 16.5 million people. However, in the months prior to the pandemic, the rate was at historic lows—in fact, as low as 6.8 percent. Obviously, while 10.2 percent is far better than 22.9 percent, it is significantly worse than 6.8 percent, representing a difference of 5.3 million workers.

Unfortunately, monthly U-6 data is not available for the states, making any comparison difficult. The BLS currently publishes only experimental U-6 state data averaged over a year’s time.

More useful for the states is the Nonfarm Employment estimates from BLS’s Current Employment Statistics survey. Only two states—Utah & Idaho—have caught up with employment from where they were in February 2020 before the pandemic hit. In contrast, the U.S as a whole is still 5% behind. Georgia ranks 16th among the states and is 4.0 % behind. Hawaii (-14.8%), New York (-9.6%), and Nevada (-8.6%) are the three states furthest behind. 

If we use standard economic ARIMA Model time-series forecasting to estimate where employment would have been absent the pandemic, no state is back on track. The United States is 6.8% behind, and Georgia ranks near the middle in 27th place at −6.1%. Utah and Idaho lead the pack being the furthest ahead, while Hawaii, Nevada, New York, California, and Massachusetts trail the pack.

Observations on state differences and policies

In viewing the differences in employment among the states, the more rural states appear to be doing better. The states more dependent on tourism appear to be doing worse. State governments that implemented less severe lockdowns appear to be doing better. To test these observations, we will be running regression analyses to tease out any correlations. We will post the results when completed.

In the meantime, it is important for government to adopt policies that will help businesses to rebound and make it easier for startups. The goal should be not to just lower unemployment but also to bring those sidelined workers back into the labor force.


Erik Randolph is the Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

payday

Why that’s bad for everyone else, and how raising costs can have disastrous economic consequences.

In a prior blog, I explained how empirical research supports the side of the debate asserting negative consequences due to minimum wage laws. Now we’ll look under the hood to understand more why this might be the case.

After the stock market crash of 1929—yes, I’m taking you back that far—President Herbert Hoover rolled into action to get the U.S. economy out of the recession that would become the Great Depression. Among his activities were efforts to boost prices and wages, including White House conferences to cajole business leaders to maintain wage rates. 

His successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, went further to promote higher prices and wages, especially with the Wagner Act intended to strengthen labor unions and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) that established a system of industry cartels that regulated, among other things, wages and prices. 

In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the NIRA. In response, the minimum wage became a platform issue for his 1936 reelection campaign, and FDR succeeded in getting a federal minimum wage of 25¢ per hour in 1938.

Economists seemingly agree on little, but one thing they do agree on is that the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt did nothing to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Keep this history in mind when you hear advocates who want to raise the minimum wage. 

Importance of small business

Small businesses are at the heart of the American economy. They are a major engine of prosperity and job growth, enriching society and helping to spread wealth at a time when economic disparities are receiving more attention. 

Examples of small businesses are too many to list but include your local restaurant, hair salon, construction firm, dentist, bakery, and small-town law firm. It also includes many franchisees who may own your local McDonald’s, Subway, UPS store, hardware store, senior home care service, or handyman service. 

 

worker and coin stacks

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration: 

  • There were 31.7 million small businesses in the U.S. in 2017.
  • They employed 60.6 million people, or 47.1 percent of the private workforce in 2018. 
  • That number included 4.2 million self-employed persons of color.

Small businesses created 1.6 million net jobs in 2019.

Not all about profits

Also according to the Small Business Administration, there were 249,000 business start-ups creating 863,000 new jobs in 2018. However, those gains were partially offset by 222,000 businesses shutting down, taking 762,000 jobs with them. 

This comparison is a good way of exposing a common myth about economics: It is not all about profits. It is also about losses. 

If you took an economics course in college or high school, you probably found yourself spending time looking at the impact of losses and how much a business can lose before it must shut down.

What it takes to run a small business 

Running a small business is hard. It requires dedication, resources, and daily decisions to keep operations viable without the benefit of an array of professional managers and departments that large businesses typically have. When a small business owner makes a mistake, he takes a direct hit. If the mistake is large enough, it could threaten his or her livelihood.

Politicians, on the other hand, can make a policy mistake impacting business, but they do not take a direct hit. Because every business is different, it is impossible for politicians to know what it takes for every type of business to stay viable and make a profit. Yet changes in government regulations, taxes, and wage laws can have devastating impacts on businesses.

The ability of businesses to withstand changes in minimum wage laws depends on the circumstances of the business and their profitability. It is naive to assume that every business relying on low-cost labor would be able to pay its employees more just because the government mandates them to do so. 

Many businesses operate on thin profit margins. If their costs go up, they may substitute technology for labor, if they can, which naturally and unfortunately results in workers losing their jobs. 

Worse, the business may have to shut down. It makes no sense to expect businesses to continue operating if they are losing money. Many small business owners who shut down may need to find a job themselves or risk landing in poverty. This helps no one, least of all the laid-off employees.

Final warnings

Beware of large corporations like Amazon or Walmart who might support minimum wage laws. It could be because they see it as a way to drive out competition from small mom and pop businesses.

Forcing small businesses to raise wages, especially after they sustained a financial hit from a pandemic, only promises to weaken an all-important job growth engine for the U.S. economy at a time when we need to bolster the small business sector and get the economy rolling again. This strategy of mandating wage increases certainly did not work out well during the Great Depression. There is no good reason to think it will work now.

So, what do our state and national legislators need to be doing? They need to concentrate on getting the economic job engine revving up again, and this is done by finding ways to reduce costs for businesses (not raising them), making it easier for entrepreneurs to start their own businesses (not making it harder), and making sure the financial markets are working properly so small businesses can access much-needed funds.

Where does all this leave the worker stuck in a low-wage job? Stay tuned. I’ll answer that question in my next blog. 

 

*Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

 

The Pandemic Doubles the Food Stamp Program

Part 2

By Erik Randolph

It has been said that haste makes waste. Apparently, this saying also applies to legislation.

Back in March with the pandemic looming, Congress quickly passed major legislation to address the pain of the pandemic. It was well known at the time that the quickness by which the pandemic legislation became law would lead to mistakes and inefficiencies. Here is just one of them.

The Food Stamp Cliff

My last blog highlighted the new food stamps rule created by Congress to address the pandemic. I hinted at how it made welfare cliffs worse.

Welfare cliffs, also known as benefits cliffs, show up whenever a loss in benefits exceeds an increase in earnings. These cliffs are disincentives for earning more money and can show up in tax and welfare programs individually or in combination. 

When it comes to the food stamp program, our research shows that normally these cliffs are fickle. Whether a cliff occurs for a family depends on several factors. In some cases, such as when there is an elderly or disabled member of the household, there are no welfare cliffs. However, if the household has no member who is disabled or elderly and especially receives the maximum deductions and allowances, there can be significant cliffs.

Now with the pandemic food stamp program, all households have cliffs—and they are steeper than ever before.

The table below shows the cliffs for households up to six6 persons when no member of the household is disabled or elderly. The benefit amounts stay the same no matter what income a household receives. Therefore, any household over the gross income limit—even just one dollar over the limit—would lose the entire benefit no matter what level of income it had prior to its income exceeding the limit.

 

Food Stamps Double - Cliff Table 2

Households with an elderly or a disabled member also have cliffs of the same magnitude. However, the gross income level when they hit the cliffs varies depending on the net income calculations, but in every case, these levels would be greater than the gross income limits listed in the table. 

From March 2020 to August 2020, these cliffs were immaterial because the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) received permission from the Federal government to extend eligibility certification for six months. In practice, this meant that those households no longer qualifying for benefits were allowed to stay in the program. 

However, DFCS began processing renewals again in September, and now households gaining in earnings can find themselves faced with the cliffs at the magnitudes displayed in the table.

What was Congress thinking? 

The food stamp changes were part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127), which had overwhelming bipartisan support. With the legislation, Congress intended to ensure the physical and financial security of families.

One concern was access to food. Congress wanted to make more food available through the food stamp program. Fair enough. 

However, changing the rule so that every household participating in the program gets the maximum allowable benefit was crude and blunt. It guaranteed steep welfare cliffs across the board. A single-parent household with one child earning $1,868  a month would lose $374 in monthly benefits if the parent received just one dollar more in income. 

The action also favored wealthier participants. A four-person household with $2,839 in monthly income gets $680, which is exactly the same amount received by a four-person household with no income despite being more vulnerable. 

 

Four Person Household Food Stamp Benefits

Congress did not have to be so crude and blunt in its approach. Just as easily, Congress could have simply increased the maximum allotment. This action would have spread out the extra funding across all incomes more evenly among the participants. 

Congress could have also been more daring by simultaneously increasing the gross income limit, making any potential cliffs less severe.

The dilemma 

Perhaps Congress chose not to consider these two easy alternatives because key members believed it would be too difficult to roll back the enhanced benefits once the pandemic is finally over. 

There is probably some truth to this fear. However, we do not escape the political difficulty. My next blog will focus on the coming food stamp crisis. 

If you have experience with the food stamp cliff, we would like to hear from you. Be sure to let us know in the comments below. 

 

Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Georgia Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Georgia. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

DOWNLOAD WHITE PAPER

DOWNLOAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VISIT WELFARECLIFF.ORG

Subscribe

* indicates required

Subscribe

* indicates required
Donate