New York City would firmly occupy the gray area on any black-to-white morality scale. and as such it allows for plenty of opportunities to indulge ones urges and predilections both high-minded and low-brow, noble and shameful. yet sometimes it leaves you scratching your head, unsure of what has just happened.
so it was that i found myself in the grocery store a few hours ago, putting together some items for lunch.
as i picked up the last item on the shopping list, a man approached and asked if i would be paying cash for my items. taken aback i pondered brushing him off, but instead said that yes i was while i mentally scanned through possible scams that might originate from such an encounter. he flashed an EBT (food stamp) card at me with his picture on it and said that we could help each other out: he would cover the cost of my groceries in exchange for me paying him in cash at a reduced rate. he wasn't obviously drunk or high nor obviously suffering withdrawal, but i still wasn't inclined to think that he legitimately needed the money. nonetheless, self-interest and curiosity won out, and i followed him to the register. the full tally was right about $15 and i worried for a moment that i wouldn't have exact change to cover my costs. then he whispered to me "so just give me $7". really? not even half? wow, OK. cash exchanged, we went our separate ways.
so this whole transaction was obviously a bit shady, but i'm trying to figure out who was hurt by it:
me? i got my groceries for more than 50% off. brilliant.
him? he lost out on $15 worth of food this month and only got $7 cash out of it, but he insitgated the transaction and set the price. i can only assume that he knew he wouldn't need the food that month. some unemployed friends used food stamps last summer and i remember them saying that it was difficult to spend all of the money available.
the supermarket? no, they sold $15 worth of goods and will get that much back from the government.
some government agency? not really. yes their $15 didn't end up being spent exactly on who it was intended for, but it did pay for food and i'm not exactly a Rockefeller here.
so i guess the guy was the loser, but only because he was willing to be in that there was benefit for him in giving up what he did (whether that benefit is legal/kosher/what have you is unknown). so, like the class action debate from a couple weeks ago i'm left to ponder a situation in which my actions lead to a possibly undeserved benefit, which benefit would have simply fallen to someone else if i declined and which benefit creates no additional harm to the other party. for now i'm chalking it up to "right place at the right time".
Posted by jamie at August 11, 2004 03:24 PMi thought i knew you, jamie christian paquette.
Posted by: sujan at August 12, 2004 11:19 AMwhat does that mean? i am interested to know why people think that this was OK or not OK.
Posted by: jamie at August 12, 2004 11:43 AMUsually in NYC, a bag of heroin or crack is usually $10, I bet he had $3 and was desperate to get the rest of the nut to buy a hold overamount before withdraw kicks in.
Obviouslly u probably shouldnt have done it and itemizing is kind of silly. That said its a rough city man you gotta get yours.
Posted by: chrislarry at August 12, 2004 11:58 AMthis seems like a situation you would normally rail against, but maybe i'm wrong. then again, personal gain was involved and i'm not singling you out, but that tends to change the way we think whether we like it or not.
the rockefeller comparison is ridiculous. you guy are not poor. you are not sitting in a roach infested apartment, eating dinty moore and vienna sausages out of a can wearing clothes you buy by the pound at domsey's.
you used money that wasn't earmarked for you for your own benefit. your situation is comporable to people who spend their entire day swiping in people with their tricked out metrocards. i fucking hate those people and i hate the people who give them money. they are a reason why our fares are going up.
Posted by: sujan at August 12, 2004 01:07 PMI'm staying out of this one.
Posted by: Jim at August 12, 2004 02:10 PMActually, you could say that you've shifted both you and the other gentleman towards economic efficiency. This assumes that you were better off (which you were) and that he was no worse off (which he wasn't or no deal, right?), a "pareto superior" allocation if I ever saw one. Of course, this is economics in a vacuum.
However, taken out of a vacuum, food stamps, or any voucher really, are basically a tool to ensure that those receiving them use them to consume a particular good. You basically changed his restricted grant to an unrestricted grant of cash, thereby increasing his total income without strings attached, which is great for him, but is not a cost-effective use of public funds, and obviously contrary to the policy itself.
risking being called a goody two shoes or some such nonsense, i will side with sujan here. as in the class action cash dialogue, you are benefiting from money/gov't funds that aren't meant for you. someone somewhere is getting screwed here and just because someone asks to be abused doesn't make it right. if he in fact used the money for drugs, that's not a fun thing to contribute to. and jim, please let us hear your thoughts. these are the issues and arguments i wish everyone would contribute to so we can really get a long discussion going.
Posted by: crispin at August 12, 2004 03:04 PMDon't make me send a letter to the Ethicist
Posted by: the wife at August 12, 2004 03:20 PMWe can rationalize away any tricky situation, but we all have a moral compass and we all ignore it sometimes. I don't think my answer to whether what you did is moral even matters. If your actions are in conflict with your moral compass, there's your answer. But if your conscience is clean, then what do you have to apologize for?
Think of it kind of like, you're George Bush and you really, honestly believe you're doing a great job with the economy and a great job in Iraq.
Posted by: jake at August 12, 2004 04:20 PMOkay Jeremy, for you I'll make a comment. It's a week late though, so it's possible no one will ever see it (I haven't had Internet access since last Wednesday).
Jamie, I would advise against doing this kind of thing in the future. The fact that you seem conflicted makes me think that even though you were able to rationalize your actions intellectually, you have moral/ethical misgivings.
Here's one thing to consider: what if the guy stole those food stamps from someone who really did need the food? That's only one hypothetical possibility among many unsavory ones I/all of us could come up with if we tried hard enough.
And to back up Sujan's comment, the "no Rockefeller" comment was probably a bit too self-indulgent. None of us is wealthy, but we are all better off than the majority of the people in this city. There are several neighborhoods in Brooklyn you can visit to confirm that.
Posted by: Jim at August 18, 2004 12:24 PM