SNAP Isn’t Charity—It’s the Cost of Keeping You Hungry Enough to Work
SNAP is not charity. It is a structural patch on an economy that refuses to pay people enough to live.
The government is not “helping the poor.” It is subsidizing employers who don’t pay a living wage public-subsidyWhen wages are too low to survive on, the difference has to come from somewhere. SNAP fills the gap so the underpayment can continue..
Hunger is not an accident. It is a tool of labor discipline.
The Shame Was the Policy
If the state wanted people to eat, SNAP would be automatic.
- No interviews.
- No proof of suffering.
- No humiliation rituals at the benefits office.
The system makes you perform desperation so you’ll feel grateful instead of furious shame-as-controlShame keeps the pressure internal. It prevents solidarity. It prevents questions like “why is food conditional?”.
Shame isn’t a side effect. Shame is the enforcement mechanism.
Because a hungry worker will tolerate almost anything. But a hungry worker who knows they’ve been starved on purpose becomes dangerous.
Who Actually Benefits?
Let’s say it clearly:
- When wages stay low: employers profit
- When rent stays high: landlords profit
- When SNAP fills the gap: the public subsidizes both
SNAP doesn’t “help the poor.” SNAP underwrites corporate profit margins value-flowThe flow of value goes: worker → employer → landlord → public → back to employer/landlord. The worker is the only one not gaining..
This is not compassionate policy. This is the minimum caloric input required to keep the labor machine running.
“But Without SNAP, People Would Starve!”
Yes. Correct. And that is the indictment, not the defense.
The fact that we need SNAP means:
- wages are too low,
- rents are too high,
- and the economy functions by keeping workers hungry.
SNAP is not fixing the problem. SNAP is masking it just enough to prevent revolt.
The Real Scandal
No one should have to prove they deserve food. No one should need permission to eat.
A society that requires hunger to maintain profit is a society that has chosen cruelty as its organizing principle.
The question has never been:
“Are people deserving of help?”
The question is:
Who decided hunger was acceptable in the first place?