6 ms·

The author might be missing the main reason people donate canned food. It isn't just cash vs goods, they also want to feel like they have made a personal contr

The author might be missing the main reason people donate canned food. It isn't just cash vs goods, they also want to feel like they have made a personal contribution. I loved eating canned corn as a kid, same thing for canned string beans (don't judge!). I, and others like me, want to feel like they are doing that personal act. Be it donating kids clothing that has been out grown, or our favorite type of canned goods. When I was in college and had very little money to spare, I still donated canned goods because I wanted to help out. If I had been given an envelop and a form to fill out my CC details or drop cash in, I likely would have done nothing. And I suspect many other people are the same way. And honestly, back then as a poor college kid, spur of the moment I could go into my pantry and grab a couple of cans I got on sale last week. It'd be harder to donate money that has to be spent on future needs, which are much less certain than needs that have already been met[1]. Charities, and all human organizations for that matter, have to work within the bounds of human psychology, and humans are rarely creatures of optimal habits. [1] I wonder how much of canned goods is new purchases versus existing purchases? I personally have gone out and bought canned goods specifically for a food drive. If the majority of donated canned goods are from existing supplies, than the article's entire point is invalid.

mc32 7y ago
Speaking of canned foods I liked as a kid were: the little peas in the silver can, tangerine wedges, Viennese “sausages” and spaghetti-os. All of them are barf inducing to me now.
- com2kid 7y ago
  > the little peas in the silver can Canned peas are terrible. Canned mandarin oranges (Google turns up no results for canned tangerines?) are actually an essential ingredient in quite a few recipes, well unless one wants to peel a bunch of tiny orange wedges by hand. Canned Vienna Sausages likewise have their place, rare as that place may be, and there are actually higher end canned brands that are rather edible. So, fun fact about sense of taste over time. Kids have a more sensitive pallet, food tastes super strong to them, so it is often more bland or has simpler flavors. This is why kids can't eat lots of bitter or sour things, they taste really bitter or really sour. As we grow older, our sense of taste starts to die out, and so flavors are less intense. This means overpowering flavors become less overpowering, and we can taste more "refined" foods. And we can also tolerate pickles. (See: Tendencies for older adults and red wine[1]) Exact same goes for our sense of color and taste. Again, as we get older, brighter colors, and stronger perfumes become preferred. Back to food, simple kid foods either taste bland, or have one dominant flavor. In American famously it is mac and cheese. The texture is simple and the flavor is simple. [1] IMHO most red wines taste horrible, but at a certain age we just can't taste how horrible they are and they become tolerable.
  - derefr 7y ago
    If kids taste things more strongly than adults, why do kids like Sunny Delight? It's far too strongly... whatever-flavor-it-is (mostly sugar) to the adult palate, but kids have no problem with it.
    - notriddle 7y ago
      Because their metabolism actually wants all those calories.
    - Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
      Sunny Delight tastes like it was made on a bet that someone could make orange juice without using any oranges.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      seems weird to me too. when I was a kid I certainly didn't like complex flavors, but I loved intensely sweet, "tangy" things (like sunny d).
- efa 7y ago
  spaghetti-os are still good!
dpeck 7y ago
| I wonder how much of canned goods is new purchases versus existing purchases? I personally have gone out and bought canned goods specifically for a food drive. single data point, but I've helped unpack/sort for several different food drives of the years and I would say that its somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 on previously bought vs existing.
starpilot 7y ago
No, the author covers this pretty well: > And lastly, something that is probably the most uncomfortable fact about all this; it doesn’t feel as good to donate money. As much as we like to pretend that charitable giving is a selfless act, a lot of it is driven by the human need to feel special and magnanimous. > As donations go, it’s much more satisfying to donate a minivan filled with Ragu than to send a $100 e-transfer. > Charities know this, and it’s another reason why they are so hesitant to pooh-pooh canned food drives, despite the extra logistical cost. Non-profits know that people get a buzz from loudly dropping $6 worth of cans into an office hamper, and they’re happy to channel that urge towards something good. I personally donate cash to GiveDirectly. Money is always best.
- j-c-hewitt 7y ago
  Well, I know the charity administrator can just pay himself with a cash donation, but they can't do much with cans of food other than either distribute them or destroy them.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Another portion of the article touches on the overhead to sort and store all these items for later distribution, that sorting might be done by volunteers (and thus be free-ish) but there's always an opportunity cost, the labour used for receiving these items is labour lost on other important projects. If the charity is a responsible one then you're wasting more money by forcing them to sort your cans, clothing and miscellaneous junk than the slim chance that someone's going to misuse those funds
  - hyayz 7y ago
    Exactly. Reminds me of panhandlers who ask for money to buy food. But if you give them food they refuse to take it. Yeah, right...
    - javagram 7y ago
      You can actually vet a charity unlike a panhandler. You might even be able to volunteer for them yourself for a few weekends and gain trust in them before setting up a scheduled cash donation, if you really want to verify it.
quickthrower2 7y ago
They did touch on the feelgood factor of donating food vs money.
johnchristopher 7y ago
Are you from the US ? My 2ç: I noticed that there is a strong tradition there to favour charity over social welfare and one of the recurring argument is about how the receiver should feel grateful toward the giver because it somehow attaches a moral debt to the help which the receiver wouldn't feel the burden if the government was the proxy (through taxes) for helping those in need. I am a European and my first thoughts are always "What a nasty way to help others, adding moral debt to being helped, to put conditions on what should be an act of voluntary uninterested generosity (as opposed to an obligatory act through an inhumane government). That must have something to do with the protestantism cultural background in the US but I can't put my finger on it.". Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be. Personally I don't give money to beggars. I did some volunteering and I regularly donate money to some very specific charities I support because: 1. they are going to do a much better job than I and 2. in the city, once you get tagged as a coin giver then words get around pretty fast. It got so bad at one point that I couldn't walk some streets without having two people coming up to me and 3. my government (which has some decent support for homelessness) don't support those specific charities with its welfare system so... Edit: format and light rewording. I believe this has to do with everyone's specific set of values. I am not saying Americans are bad people and manipulative moralistic individuals (and I just found some arguments that support the idea that the american charity style helps poor people better than the euro style).
- siphon22 7y ago
  Im totally shocked that someone who doesnt give to those in need is okay with them using panhandling money for alcohol or drugs. Its always okay when its not your own money.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    I haven't been clear. I used to give money in the street, I did some volunteering and now choose to give to some specific charities regularly. I still give a coin every three months but way less more than before. I am still okay with this coin being used for whatever purposes though. > Its always okay when its not your own money. Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?
Brendinooo 7y ago
I've had similar thoughts but never felt great about articulating them. (So don't jump me as though I'm typing this with absolute certainty please!) Like, maybe there's some kind of societal rot where our problems are all abstracted away. - Some government program takes care of that, and payment for that was taken out of your paycheck before it got to you. - Don't collect items, no need to volunteer, just cut a check and let the pros handle it. - Don't talk to the homeless man, except to tell him that there's an agency who can fix all of his problems. - Don't bake a loaf of bread for a family; we can't trust that the bread is safe, and that dollar of ingredients could have purchased two loaves of the cheaper stuff. All while suburbs and cars physically insulate us from those problems. We don't have to meet or know those people; just drop a few bucks in the plate and don't think about it again. Just seems like it all has a cumulative effect, turning real problems into abstract ideas. Maybe it's selfish to want to feel like you're doing something directly, but I wonder if there's a difficult-to-measure aspect here of dehumanization on the side of those in need? Is "maximum efficiency" some side effect of extreme capitalism, and not the be-all and end-all of charity?
- lazerpants 7y ago
  It's probably just a by-product of modern living in a large complex society. Free riders are punished in small communities because individuals know each other and are aware of each others actions over [x] period of time. In a large society no on knows anyone else and free-riderism is much more difficult to control.

mc32 7y ago

Speaking of canned foods I liked as a kid were: the little peas in the silver can, tangerine wedges, Viennese “sausages” and spaghetti-os. All of them are barf inducing to me now.

com2kid 7y ago
> the little peas in the silver can Canned peas are terrible. Canned mandarin oranges (Google turns up no results for canned tangerines?) are actually an essential ingredient in quite a few recipes, well unless one wants to peel a bunch of tiny orange wedges by hand. Canned Vienna Sausages likewise have their place, rare as that place may be, and there are actually higher end canned brands that are rather edible. So, fun fact about sense of taste over time. Kids have a more sensitive pallet, food tastes super strong to them, so it is often more bland or has simpler flavors. This is why kids can't eat lots of bitter or sour things, they taste really bitter or really sour. As we grow older, our sense of taste starts to die out, and so flavors are less intense. This means overpowering flavors become less overpowering, and we can taste more "refined" foods. And we can also tolerate pickles. (See: Tendencies for older adults and red wine[1]) Exact same goes for our sense of color and taste. Again, as we get older, brighter colors, and stronger perfumes become preferred. Back to food, simple kid foods either taste bland, or have one dominant flavor. In American famously it is mac and cheese. The texture is simple and the flavor is simple. [1] IMHO most red wines taste horrible, but at a certain age we just can't taste how horrible they are and they become tolerable.
- derefr 7y ago
  If kids taste things more strongly than adults, why do kids like Sunny Delight? It's far too strongly... whatever-flavor-it-is (mostly sugar) to the adult palate, but kids have no problem with it.
  - notriddle 7y ago
    Because their metabolism actually wants all those calories.
  - Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
    Sunny Delight tastes like it was made on a bet that someone could make orange juice without using any oranges.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    seems weird to me too. when I was a kid I certainly didn't like complex flavors, but I loved intensely sweet, "tangy" things (like sunny d).
efa 7y ago
spaghetti-os are still good!

dpeck 7y ago

| I wonder how much of canned goods is new purchases versus existing purchases? I personally have gone out and bought canned goods specifically for a food drive. single data point, but I've helped unpack/sort for several different food drives of the years and I would say that its somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 on previously bought vs existing.

starpilot 7y ago

No, the author covers this pretty well: > And lastly, something that is probably the most uncomfortable fact about all this; it doesn’t feel as good to donate money. As much as we like to pretend that charitable giving is a selfless act, a lot of it is driven by the human need to feel special and magnanimous. > As donations go, it’s much more satisfying to donate a minivan filled with Ragu than to send a $100 e-transfer. > Charities know this, and it’s another reason why they are so hesitant to pooh-pooh canned food drives, despite the extra logistical cost. Non-profits know that people get a buzz from loudly dropping $6 worth of cans into an office hamper, and they’re happy to channel that urge towards something good. I personally donate cash to GiveDirectly. Money is always best.

j-c-hewitt 7y ago
Well, I know the charity administrator can just pay himself with a cash donation, but they can't do much with cans of food other than either distribute them or destroy them.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Another portion of the article touches on the overhead to sort and store all these items for later distribution, that sorting might be done by volunteers (and thus be free-ish) but there's always an opportunity cost, the labour used for receiving these items is labour lost on other important projects. If the charity is a responsible one then you're wasting more money by forcing them to sort your cans, clothing and miscellaneous junk than the slim chance that someone's going to misuse those funds
- hyayz 7y ago
  Exactly. Reminds me of panhandlers who ask for money to buy food. But if you give them food they refuse to take it. Yeah, right...
  - javagram 7y ago
    You can actually vet a charity unlike a panhandler. You might even be able to volunteer for them yourself for a few weekends and gain trust in them before setting up a scheduled cash donation, if you really want to verify it.

quickthrower2 7y ago

They did touch on the feelgood factor of donating food vs money.

johnchristopher 7y ago

Are you from the US ? My 2ç: I noticed that there is a strong tradition there to favour charity over social welfare and one of the recurring argument is about how the receiver should feel grateful toward the giver because it somehow attaches a moral debt to the help which the receiver wouldn't feel the burden if the government was the proxy (through taxes) for helping those in need. I am a European and my first thoughts are always "What a nasty way to help others, adding moral debt to being helped, to put conditions on what should be an act of voluntary uninterested generosity (as opposed to an obligatory act through an inhumane government). That must have something to do with the protestantism cultural background in the US but I can't put my finger on it.". Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be. Personally I don't give money to beggars. I did some volunteering and I regularly donate money to some very specific charities I support because: 1. they are going to do a much better job than I and 2. in the city, once you get tagged as a coin giver then words get around pretty fast. It got so bad at one point that I couldn't walk some streets without having two people coming up to me and 3. my government (which has some decent support for homelessness) don't support those specific charities with its welfare system so... Edit: format and light rewording. I believe this has to do with everyone's specific set of values. I am not saying Americans are bad people and manipulative moralistic individuals (and I just found some arguments that support the idea that the american charity style helps poor people better than the euro style).

siphon22 7y ago
Im totally shocked that someone who doesnt give to those in need is okay with them using panhandling money for alcohol or drugs. Its always okay when its not your own money.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  I haven't been clear. I used to give money in the street, I did some volunteering and now choose to give to some specific charities regularly. I still give a coin every three months but way less more than before. I am still okay with this coin being used for whatever purposes though. > Its always okay when its not your own money. Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?

Brendinooo 7y ago

I've had similar thoughts but never felt great about articulating them. (So don't jump me as though I'm typing this with absolute certainty please!) Like, maybe there's some kind of societal rot where our problems are all abstracted away. - Some government program takes care of that, and payment for that was taken out of your paycheck before it got to you. - Don't collect items, no need to volunteer, just cut a check and let the pros handle it. - Don't talk to the homeless man, except to tell him that there's an agency who can fix all of his problems. - Don't bake a loaf of bread for a family; we can't trust that the bread is safe, and that dollar of ingredients could have purchased two loaves of the cheaper stuff. All while suburbs and cars physically insulate us from those problems. We don't have to meet or know those people; just drop a few bucks in the plate and don't think about it again. Just seems like it all has a cumulative effect, turning real problems into abstract ideas. Maybe it's selfish to want to feel like you're doing something directly, but I wonder if there's a difficult-to-measure aspect here of dehumanization on the side of those in need? Is "maximum efficiency" some side effect of extreme capitalism, and not the be-all and end-all of charity?

lazerpants 7y ago
It's probably just a by-product of modern living in a large complex society. Free riders are punished in small communities because individuals know each other and are aware of each others actions over [x] period of time. In a large society no on knows anyone else and free-riderism is much more difficult to control.