3 ms·

NO! Stop it! Look I appreciate your desire to help. It's a fantastic thing, and something we should all do. However, giving money to people on the street is no

by enjo 13y ago

NO! Stop it! Look I appreciate your desire to help. It's a fantastic thing, and something we should all do. However, giving money to people on the street is not helping. It's enabling. Basically every city has some sort of program to help the homeless work themselves back into society in general. These programs are generally built around strict oversight and supervision during those early days. These programs are effective and important. However, they do require the people participating in them to be fully "bought in". When you give a dollar to someone "down on their luck", you are really giving them just enough of a life-rope to keep from entering these programs (which require sobriety as a matter of course). You're not helping them. You're ensuring that they spend another night on the street, and ultimately that may prove fatal. They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will. That's how the road to ending their homelessness truly begins. * source: Working with several homeless organizations.

dylangs1030 13y ago
I'm glad you brought up this argument. I live in New York, and I frequently travel in NYC. I've spoken to a number of homeless people. How do you counter the often heard response that homeless shelters pose a risk to people entering them? I have heard stories (I don't know if they're true, but I wasn't told on the pretense of giving money) that homeless shelters frequently house other members who will steal from their fellows or abuse them (sometimes sexually). Like I said, I like your argument. But you worked with several homeless shelters, I want to know your take on this.
- enjo 13y ago
  Shelters are only a very small part of the programs that help get folks off the streets. While they may not be the best of places, most homeless who seek help (at least in my city) will spend only a short time in shelters. These programs operate primarily on short-term and longer-term housing options coupled with job training, rehabilitation for any substance abuse issues, and general help. People spending significant time in shelters (again, in my city) are refusing to enter into these programs.
WalterGR 13y ago
> source: Working with several homeless organizations. I've a few questions (from legitimate curiosity - I have no point to prove here,) if you'll indulge me: * What percentage of the homeless you've encountered in your work are mentally ill? * What percentage are addicts? * Of those addicts, how many became homeless because they were addicts, and how many became addicts after they became homeless?
calibraxis 13y ago
I too have some small experience in this department. Saying, "NO! Stop it!" is a questionable sign. "Homeless organizations" are not all alike; they have radically different approaches. (For example, to what extent are they led by homeless people affected by their actions?) Your post maintains that people should hit rock-bottom; then they will be integrated into government programs to "work themselves back into society in general" with "strict oversight and supervision". And, "They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will." This notion of "free will" is actually "desperation". It is not a free choice between alternatives. Consider this: have you spoken with a parent who complained about some random rude person who criticized some minor aspect of their childcare? (Usually a mother, since even rather negligent fathers are heroes.) That can ruin people's days, make them angry and humiliated. Consider being in an institution which is all about this "strict oversight and supervision". And what's the prospect? Many uninterrupted hours a day of even more dignity destruction washing dishes for some strict boss. (Who often stiffs them on their paycheck to boot.) (I'm not saying people have to individually give money to their fellow humans down on their luck. If people prefer some small sustainable amount of activism to fight the societal structures which make people poor, good on them. That's collective action, not atomized individual action; certainly in the business world, people organize into strange sorts of collectives. And activism is generally in their own interests; the prospect of being poor scares people into accepting worse conditions for being cogs in the machine. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of...)
mikegagnon 13y ago
> "However, giving money to people on the street is not helping." Recall, my goal isn't to solve their problems by giving them small amounts of money. I think to solve their problems we need to make society-wide changes. Under our current form of society, there will __always__ be people on the bottom. My hope is that they can use my donation to temporarily boost their happiness. Similar to how when I spend $2 on a cupcake it temporarily boosts my happiness. > "It's enabling." My thesis is that I am not enabling their poverty. If we stopped giving them money, they (in aggregate) could not work themselves out of poverty --- because there isn't room for everyone to make money in our society. Recall, unemployment is non-zero. > "Basically every city has some sort of program to help the homeless work themselves back into society in general." I think these programs are important. But I don't think they should be the only mechanisms by which we contribute charity to impoverished people. > "However, they do require the people participating in them to be fully "bought in". When you give a dollar to someone "down on their luck", you are really giving them just enough of a life-rope to keep from entering these programs (which require sobriety as a matter of course)." It sounds like you are essentially saying that the homeless should be helped __exclusively__ through these programs. I disagree. Not everyone will benefit from those programs; not everyone is even elligile for admission. For instance, you point out non-sober people won't benefit. I don't think people are universally capable of curing themselves of addiction. Some people are unlucky and do not have the "will power" to overcome addiction. This comes back to my point about the possibility that free will might be an illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will > "You're not helping them." I am helping them. They smile when I give them money, and then they use it in whatever way they think will improve their life. > "They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will. That's how the road to ending their homelessness truly begins." I am glad you made that point because I think it illustrates the core of our disagreement. It seems you strongly believe in the existence of free will. You believe that people have a "choice." Whereas I am skeptical that free will exists. I think it is plausible that impoverished people could literally have zero ability to "make choices" that could bring them out of poverty. I am lucky; they are not. I get to eat complimentary delicious food at work, whenever I want. I want to share my wealth directly with the unlucky.

by enjo 13y ago

dylangs1030 13y ago

I'm glad you brought up this argument. I live in New York, and I frequently travel in NYC. I've spoken to a number of homeless people. How do you counter the often heard response that homeless shelters pose a risk to people entering them? I have heard stories (I don't know if they're true, but I wasn't told on the pretense of giving money) that homeless shelters frequently house other members who will steal from their fellows or abuse them (sometimes sexually). Like I said, I like your argument. But you worked with several homeless shelters, I want to know your take on this.

enjo 13y ago
Shelters are only a very small part of the programs that help get folks off the streets. While they may not be the best of places, most homeless who seek help (at least in my city) will spend only a short time in shelters. These programs operate primarily on short-term and longer-term housing options coupled with job training, rehabilitation for any substance abuse issues, and general help. People spending significant time in shelters (again, in my city) are refusing to enter into these programs.

WalterGR 13y ago

> source: Working with several homeless organizations. I've a few questions (from legitimate curiosity - I have no point to prove here,) if you'll indulge me: * What percentage of the homeless you've encountered in your work are mentally ill? * What percentage are addicts? * Of those addicts, how many became homeless because they were addicts, and how many became addicts after they became homeless?

calibraxis 13y ago

I too have some small experience in this department. Saying, "NO! Stop it!" is a questionable sign. "Homeless organizations" are not all alike; they have radically different approaches. (For example, to what extent are they led by homeless people affected by their actions?) Your post maintains that people should hit rock-bottom; then they will be integrated into government programs to "work themselves back into society in general" with "strict oversight and supervision". And, "They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will." This notion of "free will" is actually "desperation". It is not a free choice between alternatives. Consider this: have you spoken with a parent who complained about some random rude person who criticized some minor aspect of their childcare? (Usually a mother, since even rather negligent fathers are heroes.) That can ruin people's days, make them angry and humiliated. Consider being in an institution which is all about this "strict oversight and supervision". And what's the prospect? Many uninterrupted hours a day of even more dignity destruction washing dishes for some strict boss. (Who often stiffs them on their paycheck to boot.) (I'm not saying people have to individually give money to their fellow humans down on their luck. If people prefer some small sustainable amount of activism to fight the societal structures which make people poor, good on them. That's collective action, not atomized individual action; certainly in the business world, people organize into strange sorts of collectives. And activism is generally in their own interests; the prospect of being poor scares people into accepting worse conditions for being cogs in the machine. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of...)

mikegagnon 13y ago

> "However, giving money to people on the street is not helping." Recall, my goal isn't to solve their problems by giving them small amounts of money. I think to solve their problems we need to make society-wide changes. Under our current form of society, there will __always__ be people on the bottom. My hope is that they can use my donation to temporarily boost their happiness. Similar to how when I spend $2 on a cupcake it temporarily boosts my happiness. > "It's enabling." My thesis is that I am not enabling their poverty. If we stopped giving them money, they (in aggregate) could not work themselves out of poverty --- because there isn't room for everyone to make money in our society. Recall, unemployment is non-zero. > "Basically every city has some sort of program to help the homeless work themselves back into society in general." I think these programs are important. But I don't think they should be the only mechanisms by which we contribute charity to impoverished people. > "However, they do require the people participating in them to be fully "bought in". When you give a dollar to someone "down on their luck", you are really giving them just enough of a life-rope to keep from entering these programs (which require sobriety as a matter of course)." It sounds like you are essentially saying that the homeless should be helped __exclusively__ through these programs. I disagree. Not everyone will benefit from those programs; not everyone is even elligile for admission. For instance, you point out non-sober people won't benefit. I don't think people are universally capable of curing themselves of addiction. Some people are unlucky and do not have the "will power" to overcome addiction. This comes back to my point about the possibility that free will might be an illusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will > "You're not helping them." I am helping them. They smile when I give them money, and then they use it in whatever way they think will improve their life. > "They need to bottom out and seek help of their own free will. That's how the road to ending their homelessness truly begins." I am glad you made that point because I think it illustrates the core of our disagreement. It seems you strongly believe in the existence of free will. You believe that people have a "choice." Whereas I am skeptical that free will exists. I think it is plausible that impoverished people could literally have zero ability to "make choices" that could bring them out of poverty. I am lucky; they are not. I get to eat complimentary delicious food at work, whenever I want. I want to share my wealth directly with the unlucky.