6 ms·

Don’t just walk past; give them some cash or carry gift cards for grocery store or pharmacies to hand out. Then also donate to a local shelter. Give them cash

by ctur 7y ago

Don’t just walk past; give them some cash or carry gift cards for grocery store or pharmacies to hand out. Then also donate to a local shelter. Give them cash. Give them dignity by making eye contact. Give the benefit of the doubt they need it and will use it responsibly. Give.

thrwaway69 7y ago
A nicer gesture would be asking what they need and supplying them. Cash is not always the best medium for reasons related to not having enough background information. Some of them may use it for worsening their condition (addiction) and others don't know how to get good supplies from it - mindset change due to homelessness.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  That's not right. You don't get to decide what people do with your gifts. That, too, is not how giving works. For those who are addicted (and let's repeat that not everyone who is homeless is an addict, at least not yet) their addiction won't magickally vanish if you don't give them money to spend on drugs. They'll find their drugs anyway. Maybe not with your money, but they won't get any better because you didn't give them money. And they'll probably do something desperate to get it if they don't have money so you're probably protecting them from the worse if you do give them money. Personally, I live in a place with a large population of homeless people and I give money. The majority don't look like they're junkies or anything, but even for the ones who are, if enough people give them money they'll get their drugs and they'll have some left to go and get themselves something else they need. You just have to fill the pot up. I sometimes ask people what they need, if they're sitting outside a store. A guy once asked me for a Cadbury's and a bottle of Gatorade. I thought, yech, on both counts and the chocolate is defo unhealthy, but maybe it was a way to combat the cold or get a quick hit of energy? How would I know? I've never sat on my arse on a cold dirty pavement for days. If the folks who do that don't know best what they need, then I certainly don't so I might as well go with what they say. Edit: And, to be perfectly honest, giving doesn't make me feel any better and it's not really helping the homeless much. What those people need is to get off the streets. Small donations like I can afford (I'm a PhD student after all) is at best helping them get by, if enough other people chip in. In the article, Anita helped the author's mother get a job. That's the kind of thing that changes a person's life, although of course packing up a warm meal for them is a very good start. There was a young guy who was sitting in the same place for at least three or four years. I used to give him money when I went by on my way home from work (before I was a PhD student). It didn't matter that I gave him money. He was still there for all those years. You don't get people out of poverty by giving them your change. Not that you shouldn't - but what is needed is, well, scuse the involuntary pun but radical societal change. Is that coming from anywhere?
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    > For those who are addicted (and let's repeat that not everyone who is homeless is an addict, at least not yet) their addiction won't magickally vanish if you don't give them money to spend on drugs. They'll find their drugs anyway. Maybe not with your money, but they won't get any better because you didn't give them money. And they'll probably do something desperate to get it if they don't have money so you're probably protecting them from the worse if you do give them money. I agree but you need to account for both parties involved. Giving money opposed to asking them for what they need and supplying it increases the risk area for harm and it's inevitably a moral burden as well if someone thinks they are fueling addiction when they might not be, it's hard to know. Addiction is a complex problem which can't be solved by a passway. The best they can do is focus on supplies for improvement in qualify of life for the homeless within a reasonable timeframe. Not only improvement in what you eat and self caring products lead to distraction from addiction but helps you stand up. It opens up opportunity to ask about them and give emotional fulfillment as well. Throwing money in a bin or putting it on their hand doesn't which is what most people would do if they were to just give out money. > I sometimes ask people what they need, if they're sitting outside a store. A guy once asked me for a Cadbury's and a bottle of Gatorade. I thought, yech, on both counts and the chocolate is defo unhealthy, but maybe it was a way to combat the cold or get a quick hit of energy? How would I know? I've never sat on my arse on a cold dirty pavement for days. If the folks who do that don't know best what they need, then I certainly don't so I might as well go with what they say. Sure that's a good point and I didn't imply to act like you know what they need. That is more of a quality issue. Giving money is unknowingly restricting and letting their mindset dictate short term benefit over long term. They may try to get a cheaper unhealthy chocolate due to dollar difference or thought of saving up.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      Thinking of what I wrote about the guy who wanted the chocoloate and the gatorade later, I realise that there's another reason he might have asked for chocolate, and that's mental health. Sometimes, what you really need to have is what you want, because it will make you feel better. Like, emotionally "feel". Anyway I dont' agree with you, still. There's so many things that people can do with money that isn't getting high. If I buy someone a meal from outside I can only buy something ready-made (a sandwich or a kebab etc). That's not very healthy. Maybe if enough people give them money they can find a place to stay for a while (or a good Samarithan can pay for a night's stay at a motel) or they can buy something to cook and go to a friend's place to cook it and have a proper meal. I really don't think that the majority of homeless in my area are addicts. They mostly seem like people down on their luck. It's so easy to end up on the streets these days, especially in the bloody UK where social nets are threadabare and being torn apart constantly. Then of course once you're on the streets it is so easy to start drinking or shooting to "get by". Like you say addiction a complex problem but I don't accept that giving money makes it worse or doesn't help those who suffer from it. If I'm wrong, I hope I find out soon.
- jrochkind1 7y ago
  One person's "worsening their condition" is another person's self-medication. Sure, you can ask them what they need, but the nice thing about cash if they can use it to buy whatever they need, that's what cash is for. And have the dignity to decide for themselves what it is, not have to tell you and get it approved like you're their teacher or boss. I mean, are you spending some of YOUR money on alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes? Then you can afford to give someone cash without needing to worry about whether they might do the same, and whether that's good for them or not.
  - fastball 7y ago
    What is the point of giving someone money so that they can die of an overdose using the drugs you helped them buy?
    - jlokier 7y ago
      The OP explained: It gives them dignity and perhaps self-determination. Both of those things have value. A person can still die from self-determination of course, so it comes down to a decision about what you think matters the most.
      - fastball 7y ago
        They already have self-determination without you giving them money to buy drugs. And dying of an overdose doesn't give you any dignity.
        jrochkind1 7y ago
        You are not able to predict who is going to die of an overdose -- let alone because of your gift (ie suggeseting they wouldn't have otherwise, it is your gift that led to that). So you can decide to treat everyone with dignity as an adult, or nobody with dignity as an adult. You are advocating for nobody (or at least nobody who is on the streets), out of an abundance of 'caution'. You are mistaken if you think you are helping people by being an asshole to them. But it is certainly your right to do so.
- vraivroo 7y ago
  No, a nicer gesture would be respecting their dignity and humanizing them. It's popular to rationalize those who are worse off as being worse at making decisions, but it's not accurate, fair, or humane.
probably_wrong 7y ago
I disagree with the "give them cash" part - donating to shelters or charities is often better. Not because "they will spend it on drugs", which you really can't tell, but because it's a better way to help the overall population rather than a single individual. And giving cash often leads to some perverse incentives.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  You can do that right now. And if you haven’t done it by the next time you walk past a homeless person, just give them cash instead of kidding yourself that you’ll give in a more effective way later.
  - rdtwo 7y ago
    Homeless people respond to incentives like everyone else. If you keep enabling them to beg at street corners it makes it less likely that they will every do anything else to earn money and become productive members.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Yes, you can choose to simply not give either to charities or directly to homeless people, but be honest about it and don’t talk about charities being a more efficient way to give.
    - vraivroo 7y ago
      The beatings will continue until morale improves!
throwaway43289 7y ago
The problem with giving cash is that it incentivizes them to continue to panhandle, even if there are other ways they could be spending their time that are more beneficial for them. Maybe they could be waiting in a government office to sort out a benefits issue, or they could be relaxing indoors in a shelter or church, but they feel like they need to sit outside because if they don't they're losing income. Give to nonprofits that focus on helping the homeless - they will be able to distribute the benefits in a way that is better in the long-term for the homeless themselves.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "The problem with giving cash is that it incentivizes them to continue to panhandle, even if there are other ways they could be spending their time that are more beneficial for them. Maybe they could be waiting in a government office to sort out a benefits issue, or they could be relaxing indoors in a shelter or church, but they feel like they need to sit outside because if they don't they're losing income." Is this actually true? 1) Why would relaxing indoors be beneficial compared to not earning income? Isn't the whole point in society that lazing around is a bad thing and the poor should work hard to try and get themselves to a better space, which requires money? In the case of the homeless it's public humiliation in exchange for spare change. 2) What if they did, and then they have to wait several months for a response from the gov't (eg. disability)?
Kalium 7y ago
I've had enough experiences with people choosing to be irresponsible when given the benefit of the doubt that I've learned not to give it. I may be alone in this lived experience.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  You're not alone. My experience in Habitat for Humanity and with various churches offering programs to get the homeless off the street and into homes and jobs, is that people who want help go to places that offer help. People who want easy cash for selfish/self-harming reasons beg on the corners/parking lots presenting either lies or scams.
  - jlokier 7y ago
    My experience is more mixed, but it probably depends on what kinds of places and what kinds of help are available in the area. E.g. an undocumented migrant might be too afraid to go to places that could help (sometimes that's justified unfortunately), and end up self-harming because what else are you going to do stuck on the street with no future you can see, but it doesn't mean they started out motivated to self-harm.

by ctur 7y ago

thrwaway69 7y ago

A nicer gesture would be asking what they need and supplying them. Cash is not always the best medium for reasons related to not having enough background information. Some of them may use it for worsening their condition (addiction) and others don't know how to get good supplies from it - mindset change due to homelessness.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
That's not right. You don't get to decide what people do with your gifts. That, too, is not how giving works. For those who are addicted (and let's repeat that not everyone who is homeless is an addict, at least not yet) their addiction won't magickally vanish if you don't give them money to spend on drugs. They'll find their drugs anyway. Maybe not with your money, but they won't get any better because you didn't give them money. And they'll probably do something desperate to get it if they don't have money so you're probably protecting them from the worse if you do give them money. Personally, I live in a place with a large population of homeless people and I give money. The majority don't look like they're junkies or anything, but even for the ones who are, if enough people give them money they'll get their drugs and they'll have some left to go and get themselves something else they need. You just have to fill the pot up. I sometimes ask people what they need, if they're sitting outside a store. A guy once asked me for a Cadbury's and a bottle of Gatorade. I thought, yech, on both counts and the chocolate is defo unhealthy, but maybe it was a way to combat the cold or get a quick hit of energy? How would I know? I've never sat on my arse on a cold dirty pavement for days. If the folks who do that don't know best what they need, then I certainly don't so I might as well go with what they say. Edit: And, to be perfectly honest, giving doesn't make me feel any better and it's not really helping the homeless much. What those people need is to get off the streets. Small donations like I can afford (I'm a PhD student after all) is at best helping them get by, if enough other people chip in. In the article, Anita helped the author's mother get a job. That's the kind of thing that changes a person's life, although of course packing up a warm meal for them is a very good start. There was a young guy who was sitting in the same place for at least three or four years. I used to give him money when I went by on my way home from work (before I was a PhD student). It didn't matter that I gave him money. He was still there for all those years. You don't get people out of poverty by giving them your change. Not that you shouldn't - but what is needed is, well, scuse the involuntary pun but radical societal change. Is that coming from anywhere?
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  > For those who are addicted (and let's repeat that not everyone who is homeless is an addict, at least not yet) their addiction won't magickally vanish if you don't give them money to spend on drugs. They'll find their drugs anyway. Maybe not with your money, but they won't get any better because you didn't give them money. And they'll probably do something desperate to get it if they don't have money so you're probably protecting them from the worse if you do give them money. I agree but you need to account for both parties involved. Giving money opposed to asking them for what they need and supplying it increases the risk area for harm and it's inevitably a moral burden as well if someone thinks they are fueling addiction when they might not be, it's hard to know. Addiction is a complex problem which can't be solved by a passway. The best they can do is focus on supplies for improvement in qualify of life for the homeless within a reasonable timeframe. Not only improvement in what you eat and self caring products lead to distraction from addiction but helps you stand up. It opens up opportunity to ask about them and give emotional fulfillment as well. Throwing money in a bin or putting it on their hand doesn't which is what most people would do if they were to just give out money. > I sometimes ask people what they need, if they're sitting outside a store. A guy once asked me for a Cadbury's and a bottle of Gatorade. I thought, yech, on both counts and the chocolate is defo unhealthy, but maybe it was a way to combat the cold or get a quick hit of energy? How would I know? I've never sat on my arse on a cold dirty pavement for days. If the folks who do that don't know best what they need, then I certainly don't so I might as well go with what they say. Sure that's a good point and I didn't imply to act like you know what they need. That is more of a quality issue. Giving money is unknowingly restricting and letting their mindset dictate short term benefit over long term. They may try to get a cheaper unhealthy chocolate due to dollar difference or thought of saving up.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    Thinking of what I wrote about the guy who wanted the chocoloate and the gatorade later, I realise that there's another reason he might have asked for chocolate, and that's mental health. Sometimes, what you really need to have is what you want, because it will make you feel better. Like, emotionally "feel". Anyway I dont' agree with you, still. There's so many things that people can do with money that isn't getting high. If I buy someone a meal from outside I can only buy something ready-made (a sandwich or a kebab etc). That's not very healthy. Maybe if enough people give them money they can find a place to stay for a while (or a good Samarithan can pay for a night's stay at a motel) or they can buy something to cook and go to a friend's place to cook it and have a proper meal. I really don't think that the majority of homeless in my area are addicts. They mostly seem like people down on their luck. It's so easy to end up on the streets these days, especially in the bloody UK where social nets are threadabare and being torn apart constantly. Then of course once you're on the streets it is so easy to start drinking or shooting to "get by". Like you say addiction a complex problem but I don't accept that giving money makes it worse or doesn't help those who suffer from it. If I'm wrong, I hope I find out soon.
jrochkind1 7y ago
One person's "worsening their condition" is another person's self-medication. Sure, you can ask them what they need, but the nice thing about cash if they can use it to buy whatever they need, that's what cash is for. And have the dignity to decide for themselves what it is, not have to tell you and get it approved like you're their teacher or boss. I mean, are you spending some of YOUR money on alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes? Then you can afford to give someone cash without needing to worry about whether they might do the same, and whether that's good for them or not.
- fastball 7y ago
  What is the point of giving someone money so that they can die of an overdose using the drugs you helped them buy?
  - jlokier 7y ago
    The OP explained: It gives them dignity and perhaps self-determination. Both of those things have value. A person can still die from self-determination of course, so it comes down to a decision about what you think matters the most.
    - fastball 7y ago
      They already have self-determination without you giving them money to buy drugs. And dying of an overdose doesn't give you any dignity.
      - jrochkind1 7y ago
        You are not able to predict who is going to die of an overdose -- let alone because of your gift (ie suggeseting they wouldn't have otherwise, it is your gift that led to that). So you can decide to treat everyone with dignity as an adult, or nobody with dignity as an adult. You are advocating for nobody (or at least nobody who is on the streets), out of an abundance of 'caution'. You are mistaken if you think you are helping people by being an asshole to them. But it is certainly your right to do so.
vraivroo 7y ago
No, a nicer gesture would be respecting their dignity and humanizing them. It's popular to rationalize those who are worse off as being worse at making decisions, but it's not accurate, fair, or humane.

probably_wrong 7y ago

I disagree with the "give them cash" part - donating to shelters or charities is often better. Not because "they will spend it on drugs", which you really can't tell, but because it's a better way to help the overall population rather than a single individual. And giving cash often leads to some perverse incentives.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
You can do that right now. And if you haven’t done it by the next time you walk past a homeless person, just give them cash instead of kidding yourself that you’ll give in a more effective way later.
- rdtwo 7y ago
  Homeless people respond to incentives like everyone else. If you keep enabling them to beg at street corners it makes it less likely that they will every do anything else to earn money and become productive members.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Yes, you can choose to simply not give either to charities or directly to homeless people, but be honest about it and don’t talk about charities being a more efficient way to give.
  - vraivroo 7y ago
    The beatings will continue until morale improves!

throwaway43289 7y ago

The problem with giving cash is that it incentivizes them to continue to panhandle, even if there are other ways they could be spending their time that are more beneficial for them. Maybe they could be waiting in a government office to sort out a benefits issue, or they could be relaxing indoors in a shelter or church, but they feel like they need to sit outside because if they don't they're losing income. Give to nonprofits that focus on helping the homeless - they will be able to distribute the benefits in a way that is better in the long-term for the homeless themselves.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"The problem with giving cash is that it incentivizes them to continue to panhandle, even if there are other ways they could be spending their time that are more beneficial for them. Maybe they could be waiting in a government office to sort out a benefits issue, or they could be relaxing indoors in a shelter or church, but they feel like they need to sit outside because if they don't they're losing income." Is this actually true? 1) Why would relaxing indoors be beneficial compared to not earning income? Isn't the whole point in society that lazing around is a bad thing and the poor should work hard to try and get themselves to a better space, which requires money? In the case of the homeless it's public humiliation in exchange for spare change. 2) What if they did, and then they have to wait several months for a response from the gov't (eg. disability)?

Kalium 7y ago

I've had enough experiences with people choosing to be irresponsible when given the benefit of the doubt that I've learned not to give it. I may be alone in this lived experience.

merpnderp 7y ago
You're not alone. My experience in Habitat for Humanity and with various churches offering programs to get the homeless off the street and into homes and jobs, is that people who want help go to places that offer help. People who want easy cash for selfish/self-harming reasons beg on the corners/parking lots presenting either lies or scams.
- jlokier 7y ago
  My experience is more mixed, but it probably depends on what kinds of places and what kinds of help are available in the area. E.g. an undocumented migrant might be too afraid to go to places that could help (sometimes that's justified unfortunately), and end up self-harming because what else are you going to do stuck on the street with no future you can see, but it doesn't mean they started out motivated to self-harm.