I must be missing something here because I’m really not seeing what, as the second half or so of the article mentions, people find so wrong with this. If you qualify for food stamps, you qualify for food stamps. It’s not as though the government is breaking the rules by giving the people in this story food stamps, and the recipients aren’t breaking the rules when using them. They aren’t using up their allotments, then begging for more.
Food stamps recipients are able to use the money for whatever they choose to buy that fits the program’s guidelines, and, if both sugary foods and drinks and healthy, organic ingredients are within those guidelines, wouldn’t you rather food stamp recipients use the money to buy the latter? If anything, the government and those in charge of the program could learn something from this — food stamp guidelines should be stricter, giving those receiving the benefits little option but to eat healthier. We are so concerned about obesity in this country, and studies have shown that the poor are more likely to be overweight because the worse a food is for you, in general, the cheaper it is. If these “hipsters” can maintain a healthy diet on food stamps, why can’t everyone?
I really wish the article had mentioned how much these people make. I’m very, very curious to know how much these people make. I wonder if there are more 20- and 30-something out there who are eligible for food stamps, but just don’t know it or wouldn’t consider it because of the stigma attached.
All I have to say about this is “Yes!”
I don’t like buying music online — if I’m going to pay $10 for an album, I want something tangible. I like the feeling of taking the wrapping off a CD and putting it into my CD player. Honestly, it’s the only way I really listen to an entire album all the way through. Thus, I look forward to FYE’s $9.99 sales. And, now, I’m really looking forward to this new plan.
Because, you see, CDs are wicked expensive. I’m totally unopposed to paying for a CD I really want or something by a band I really like, but when I’m just browsing and see something interesting, I’m usually turned off of it because it’s $15-$20. Um, hello, I’m paying for insurance(s), clothing, and social events here, and I’m not making a ton of money. As much as I love music, I’d much rather put that $20 towards a live show than a CD that I can (shhh!) find online for free.
I have a hard time understanding how any executive could be quoted as saying “Why does Universal feel the need to get below $10?”
Um…why not? Clearly, if sales are down, there’s something wrong with the current model. If those lower prices generate a huge jump in sales, it’s probably the price. Always lower price = always (OK, usually is probably a safer word) higher sales. I don’t have a business degree, nor am I much of a business person, but, really, I can even figure that one out.