Hacker News Reader

Comment by rilezg | Hacker News Reader

This article is a summary of a different article: https://capitolism.thedispatch.com/p/americas-infant-formula...

It seems odd that the posted article ignores how WIC contracts are distorting the market and encouraging a monopoly and instead jumps on over-regulation being the problem. It sure seems like those contracts should either not be exclusive or should require suppliers to demonstrate supply resiliency in the face of a single factory failure.

View on HN

Two things to know as well. WIC only pays for certain sizes for formula[0] purchased at retail because they're afraid that poor women will stock up on formula or resell it. Also women have to pay part of the cost of the formula for the same reason.

> Many others have simply switched to Enfamil. Increasingly, they reach for the 12.4-ounce cans, the only size paid for by WIC.

> “I’ve gone to stores in Long Beach, I’ve gone to Rolling Hills, Carson — I’ve gone to Inglewood just to see if I could get lucky,” said Landers. “If they do have it, it’s the larger size; it’s not the size that’s approved.”

[0]- https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-13/baby-for...

I was frankly alarmed something like half of kids qualify for WIC.

Don't get me wrong, feed em, but why is child poverty so bad in the US ?

You have to be poor or very affluent to afford children in many American cities. And many of the affluent aren’t procreating.

> And many of the affluent aren’t procreating.

Source?

Has the relative, inflation-adjusted average wealth of new parents changed substantially?

> Source?

Do your own googles instead of implying that I'm ignorant or dishonest. It's easy to find birth rates broken out by income. What I said is true and readily verifiable.

I implied no such thing.

You, be contrast ("do your own googles") implied that I lack the work ethic or skill to determine this. But I did give it a quick go, and searching phrases like (birth trends by income decades) didn't yield anything to support this assertion.

I doubt you are dishonest; I just don't know the facts myself.

“Source?” comes off as obnoxious, lazy, and disrespectful to me and I intentionally communicated that, yes. However, I’ll gladly take you at your word that you didn’t intend such.

I’m surprised that you’re having trouble finding this, but assuming good faith here is the top result for [birth rate by income] on Google search for me[1]. I’m located in the USA so if you’re not perhaps this result don’t appear for you. As you can see birth rates are considerably higher among the poorest Americans. Further searching will confirm that the trend holds within and between other countries too.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...

edit, probably being touchy about a misunderstanding, nvm

Pretty sure the gp was saying that it's surprising/appaling so many people in the US are living in poverty. Not that relying on welfare is bad, or that buying food any particular way is bad.

Part of it is the exact federal poverty line depends on the family size. An income that's just over the poverty line for two adults would be under the line once it's two adults and one kid. Something like a third of adults in poverty would not be if they were childless. And then of course their kid(s) are a statistic.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FP...

I'd argue the poverty line in America is very low compared to what it really takes to live.

Most people can't significantly save money, so when you have a bad month it's hard to catch up.

WIC eligibility can vary by state, but is between 100% and 185% of the federal poverty level (I spot-checked a few states, and all I saw was 185%). 185% comes to ~$50k per year for a family of 4. And most people have children relatively young, which usually means they aren't earning a ton of money.

This is the sort of program that I'd rather 'too many' people be eligible for than exclude anyone who might be helped (it is not just about adequate nutrition, but also providing information on healthy eating and referrals to health care).

My understanding is that it mostly goes to immigrants.

It only seems odd that the article ignores X and emphasises Y until you look at where the article is from.

'Reason' has an ideological hammer, and goshdarnit they'll go find some terrible government nails for it, whether that's the actual problem or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com