She probably didn't. I took "current job" to mean the job this person has at the time of the telling of this story - i.e. they have since found a greener pasture.

I meant that her total compensation was more with her current job that paid less and did not use her qualifications.

The equation was worse job + food stamps > better job without food stamps. The better job in the long run might have lead to better still. But she couldn't afford it in the short run.

Higher hourly pay, but less hours per week, maybe.

probably under table, waitressing tips etc

A lot of welfare and food stamp recipients are the working poor.

This was a single mom with three children. She needs to arrange for child care while she's working and it's a good idea to set aside money for medical emergencies. I'm going to guess this job probably pays a few dollars above minimum wage.

Someone in this situation is absolutely eligible for food stamps. But if we get another four years of MAGA, then who knows, maybe not.

Right, that's not the point. The point is that taking a pay cut, with apparently no other change in circumstance, somehow rendered her ineligible for a social service she was already receiving. I want to know what rule made that possible, as it appears to be critical to this discussion of perverse discontinuities.

Yeah, we're missing some details here. Could be tips or hours worked as sibling comments suggested. Life is messy.

Does the food stamp program look at hourly wage as your income determinant, instead of weekly income?