"If you want to say I chose to become homeless and sleep on the streets, really all I have to say is fuck you. You’ve never experienced it.”"
If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant.
Even on minimum wage, you could rent out a room on craigslist or a hotel for a weekly rate (I did this before and the prices haven't changed much). There are options for physically and mentally able individuals to get a roof over their head.
From the bottom of the article: “I’ve become a professional vagabond, and this is the lifestyle that I love.”
I think many of these people (not all) choose not to get a job because it's very empowering to live without having to follow many rules. It's a similar freedom to working for yourself.
Clearly you don't have any experience with people you know struggling with mental illness ( which by the is very prevalent amongst the homeless ). It's not a choice to be so depressed you can't show up for work; or so manic you can't deal with coworkers.
But if we're going to talk about choices and homelessness; let's talk about what we can do as a society to minimize it and it's harms. Utah has proven that a "housing-first" approach to dealing with the homeless works.
We are the richest and most powerful society that has ever been, yet we choose not solve this problem; and it does reflect badly on us.
My town tried something like this. Built apartments for the "chronically homeless" on the idea that, provided with decent homes, they could focus on getting jobs and putting other areas of their lives in order. What's happening? The tenants are trashing the apartments, selling the appliances, and not working. Enabling poor life choices generally doesn't stop those who are making them.
That sounds closer to what I would expect of such a program, but it apparently works in Utah. Is there something that story leaves out? Are the approaches different?
What is cheaper, having to replace a microwave once a month, or sending a homeless person to a hospital once a month? And once a month is probably an underestimate, if anything.
How we currently treat the homeless is a disaster, both in terms of outcomes and cost. "On a monthly basis she does hundreds of dollars worth of property damage, shoots up heroin once per week, has ten times the chance of the general population of being raped, and costs the government thousands of dollars" is genuinely a massive improvement over the status quo: people just don't realize how shitty and expensive the status quo actually is. One of the benefits of starting from really low is that things that otherwise are shitty end up looking like sunshine in comparison.
San Francisco spends something like $150 million a year in direct tax expenditures on solving its homelessness problem, to no observable benefit. It seems obvious choice to me that it'd be better to totally disregard any rights of the homeless, offer Stockton or Kansas $100 million a year just for the right to set up a staffed homeless complex within its borders, and call it a day.
Keep in mind that the Mormon church funds about half of the homeless program in Salt Lake City. They also donate free food to anyone in need. I would argue that the outcomes (for both homeless and non-homeless residents) are better in SLC than SF, but the total amount spent per homeless person is not radically different between the two cities.
When the above is combined with the fact that SLC has fewer homeless per capita, it's easy to see why the SLC method looks like the easy way out.
I also found the statements in the leading and final quotes almost absurdly contradictory. "Fuck you, I didn't choose this, but I love it."
Living in a city with a lot of visible homelessness and panhandling, I constantly struggle with what the right thing to do is. It seems like the only way to be sure you're helping is to only ever hand out food, or actually offer someone a place to stay. I used to hand out money when I had some on hand, but on reflection it seems irresponsible - what if that $5 is what ends their life by allowing them to OD or buy unsafe drugs? It could just as easily save their life by providing food or shelter, but by my reasoning it makes more sense to cut out the middleman.
Throwing into the mix that some people are choosing this lifestyle for reasons of "freedom" from society (while simultaneously depending heavily upon its existence and the generosity of others) just confuses the matter more for me.
If anyone has a good moral framework for this I'd be interested in hearing it.
> "Fuck you, I didn't choose this, but I love it."
You'll find that most difficult experiences people endure in life don't make sense on a logical level. You'll also probably find it hard to empathize with. If you've heard of love hate relationships, it's sort of like that.
I wasn't homeless, but my father was as a child under 5-10 for some time (I am not exactly sure how long).
All I can really say is sometimes it feels like you've been born into a path that is predetermined by fate, you've tried as hard as you can to jump over that wall to get out of that path, and every time you try, someone kicks you out. So you wind up rationalizing your current circumstances, finding value where you can while you have to live it, and generally developing intolerance for people who do not tolerate you.
But most of the time, quick snaps of the tongue like this are exactly that. They are a flit of emotion, over a thing that is a tangled web of emotion.
These are complicated things. It is sad to me, but most of the time, instead of helping, all I can do is continue trying to survive, so I don't have to live the life my parents did.
I always give cash if I have some on hand. Good odds they'll use it to buy a drink, which is fine because hell, I need a drink after a long day and I'm not even homeless. And there is a non-zero chance he or she really does need it to get food or get in from the cold for the night. Wouldn't want to risk not giving money when there was a genuine need because I'm worried about the case where there isn't.
>Good odds they'll use it to buy a drink, which is fine because hell, I need a drink after a long day and I'm not even homeless.
Thanks for saying this. The homeless and the poor are human beings and should not be demonized for having the niceties that make anyone's life more joyful. (Kansas, I'm not so sure you're doing it right [1].)
I once read about and have since admired a very enlightened approach to this, in the UK: when measuring the average cost of living in addition to things like food and shelter they will also include the money that a household would need to take a one-week vacation.
> they will also include the money that a household would need to take a one-week vacation.
Pretty standard (Western) Europe welfare model afaik. Here in the Netherlands it's called 'vacation money', and if you don't have a job and can show you're applying for one, you'll get a minimum wage income and vacation money is indeed included in that as a bonus once a year.
> the poor are human beings and should not be demonized for having the niceties
Absolutely, but you mentioned the UK. I visited the Emmaus centre in Cambridge a few years ago, all the lads there (ex homeless often for more than a decade) told me to never give money because buying alcohol isn't just 'nice', it's a disease that destroys people and there are alternative solutions. They all lived that life.
I'm not going to say 'don't give', but if you somehow know for certain it's spent on alcohol, I definitely would say don't give. At least, taking it from ex homeless guys who still struggle with alcoholism and the life they live now at Emmaus.
Perhaps it's different in various shitholes in the world where there is nothing to rely on, I can imagine alcohol being a sensible temporary relief, but in cities with capacity for homelessness issues, it's not a good choice. And if you look at Europe for example, you'll find that e.g. the Council of Europe has ruled various times now that not just citizens, but also refugees, all of them, without fail, are to be provided a minimum of shelter, food and clothes.
Not saying it's a perfect situation, far from it, and sadly professional homelessness relief still relies way too heavily on charity and voluntarism, but in many cities giving money for alcohol is simple not the best thing to do at best, and harmful at worst.
I'm not condoning the encouragement of alcoholism. But I absolutely applaud anyone or any policy that recognizes that poor and homeless people are...people.
I'm not an expert, but I've heard from authorities on the subject that the "deserving homeless" is almost entirely a myth. The scenario of someone who is down on their luck and has to beg is rare, and they tend to do that for a relatively short amount of time. The odds are strong that you are giving your money to a person suffering from substance abuse or mental illness.
Then again, I just moved to New York, and I'm naturally biased towards interpretations that match my recent personal experience.
People with mental health problems and drug addictions also "deserve" to have enough money to live on. Even if you insist on seeing these things as moral failings, aren't they already being punished enough?
You are arguing against a very insulting straw man, and I would ordinarily not consider you not worth addressing except that a lot of people apparently think along the same ridiculous lines.
Panhandlers in major cities are at low risk of not having food available to them. The idea of the 'starving homeless' is another counterfactual myth, just as much as the 'deserving homeless'--but if it really concerns you, there are far more directly expedient ways of helping them than giving away money. Services and shelters for the homeless are pretty terrible, but I've never heard anyone credible say that these services are worse than the shortsighted, feel-good solution of giving people money they are fundamentally incapable of spending correctly.
By contrast, it is common for the homeless to die of exposure--not because they had no shelter available, but because they are mentally ill and fell into a pattern of denying it to themselves, even on the coldest days.
Look. If you want to give cash to homeless people, do that. If you want to give to shelters instead, do that. If you want to send your money to Partners in Health to provide medical care for innocent people in other countries far worse off than homeless in the US, do that. If you want to give your money to the Republican party so they can pass legislation restricting same-sex marriage because that is truly what you believe in, do that. If instead you want to save your money and ensure your children have an easy time getting through college: fine. If instead you want to keep it for yourself for your retirement to ease the burden on the rest of us: also OK. Want to buy 6 PS4 consoles so you can use an HDMI switch to select different games without reloading them or physically getting up to insert a disk in their drive? Fine too. Nachos. Fine. Guns. Fine. Meth. Sandwiches. Ferrets. Lightbulbs. Nobody cares.
Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people.
What's worse is, this thread kicked off with someone laying out in very simple terms --- terms you didn't really address --- the logic behind giving money on the street despite not knowing the purposes to which the money would be put.
You can argue however you want, including that people are wrong to give money on the street, and that it's not OK for them to give to homeless people or buy ferrets or whatever. But you shouldn't act hurt when people argue back at you.
> Where you lose people is telling other people that they're wrong to give cash to homeless people.
Why not? We encourage other people to do things all the time. I certainly encourage people to vaccinate their kids. Donating money to people who will immediately spend it on substance abuse is harmful to them. You're making yourself feel better about how you're SUCH a compassionate person at their long-term expense.
I laugh at people going, "b-b-but they're still human!!!" Like, do you donate cash on the street to non-homeless/non-panhandlers too? Yeah they're still human, why does that mean it's bad if I think about what they'll use my money for before >>donating<< it? Now if they want to earn money by working for me in some capacity, sure, they can spend it however they want. That's a completely different type of transaction.
I disagree with rayiner in that I think the things he thinks are good are actually bad, not worth feeling good about, and furthermore bad for society. Whether or not you agree, I think this is a pretty meaningful point of difference, and not sure what variety of alternate interpretation led to your epic rant.
We're not talking about Pareto-optimal market transactions here; the externalities are the point of giving money away or not giving money away. So it's an interesting position, telling me I am "wrong" for being concerned about whether one is purposefully helping or harming others. It's probably a good thing that most of the world does not share your interesting perspective.
Speaking of straw men, please note that I didn't say anything about people starving.
By all means, give money to shelters etc. But why not also give money to homeless people? The two are not mutually exclusive. You are repeating the usual mean-spirited argument that we shouldn't give homeless people money because they might spend it on things we don't approve of. But so what? It's their life, not ours. Charity with strings attached isn't charity.
I find it a useful exercise to imagine applying the same logic in dealing with comfortably well-off middle class people. If such a person has an alcohol problem, the usual reaction amongst reasonably enlightened people is to try to find that person help. We don't try to cut off all of their sources of income on the grounds that they'll just spend it all on booze. Now, perhaps some of them will spend all of their income on booze, but since we aren't so much in the habit of completely dehumanizing them, we recognize that this is still their choice to make.
The bottom line here is that drug and alcohol habits don't cost infinite amounts of money. You can perfectly well spend some of your money on drugs and the rest on food, etc. Unless you have some kind of moral objection to people using drugs, why should you care if a homeless person is spending some of their money that way? It's judgmental and mean to refuse them money because you suspect that they might be going to do this.
Enabling the patterns of mental illness and addiction is linked to negative outcomes, not positive ones. These negative outcomes include death from voluntary exposure.
So would you apply the same logic in the case of middle class people? Should we also try to ensure that they receive no income if they are drug addicts?
If you are absolutely sure that you know what's best for homeless people, and that they don't, then don't give them your money. Personally, I am not so sure.
Does the fact that they may not "deserve it" mean that they don't get satisfaction from it?
Something my wife and I have been mulling lately is the concept of "grace." She has concluded that means being able to be generous to people who don't necessarily deserve it. I'm not quite there yet but I'm trying to get there.
The "deserving homeless" are generally able to take advantage of resources that are available, like shelters, soup kitchens, etc.
Although I hate that term, because it's bad enough that we're already divided by class in this country, and now we have to impose our own classes on the homeless?
My mother was homeless for 6 months due to mental illness and an inability to access services (such as they where) so trust me when I tell you this is a truly heartfelt fuck you.
This is the modern problem though at least in my region, most people don't carry any cash at all not even coins. Everything is bought using debit cards even credit cards are not as common as debit.
Even the parking meters here have stickers with numbers on them and you use an app (Hotspot) to add money to that meters, although you can still use change of course.
Elderly people are the only people I know of who use coins and cash.
i usually don't give money to homeless people although i will help them if they need something specific.
i don't judge them at all because i (we all) have the same vices just in less debilitating incarnations, but at the end of the day... well, i don't hand out cash to non-homeless strangers either.
It's tricky. I've both personally visited homeless shelters where ex-homeless people lived and worked under guidance and coaching, and the general story from them was 'don't give money'. Maybe of them used drugs in the past and said the cliche is completely true.
In that case, if someone asks, best politely say no, direct them to places where they can get help (most advanced economies have some capacity in every city), and take the money and donate it to said places or another cause when you get home, pool it in a jar for a once a month or whatever donation if you want.
On the other hand, someone close to me in my own family was homeless for quite some time after a wrongful prison conviction. Despite him having enjoyed a great life, big social circle, never addicted, enjoyed higher education and a nice career etc, typical upper-middle class stuff, he struggled on the streets. His prison time carried stigma that he didn't deserve, but couldn't be proven innocent. He stayed on the streets partly because he was afraid to ask for help, to be seen. And partly because he was convicted on a holiday, outside of the country he knew well with a limited network.
Someone else in my family took him in, from the streets, gave him some money, a roof to stay under etc. And that's why this person is part of my family now. And I've spoken to numerous ex-homeless who had no addiction, and just didn't have any food or a roof to stay under. Or recently when we partially funded the first month rent for an illegal immigrant. He now has a painting job etc. It's an uncertain existence for him, but he's got an alright life and contributes his share to society and is financially independent. The issue is that cases like this require time to evaluate that you tend not to have passing someone by.
In short, I'm similarly conflicted and usually do give. When I have time I tend to have a chat and ask what they need. They'll say 'some change' or whatever and I'll just cheerfully say huh, why? And they'll say for some food or w/e, and I'll just hang out with them for 20min and buy them some food and eat with them. Best case he actually wanted money for food and had some social contact, worst case I fed someone who didn't starve and had a nice chat.
Don't give to a single person, give to a food bank, donate money or time to a shelter. If a single person asks you tell them where you give all your donations and they are welcome to go.
You could give out gift cards. Almost every grocery store sells them and there are reasonably-healthy fast food options (Subway) that have them as well. It's pretty easy to carry a bunch around in a wallet or purse. Pick whatever denomination you'd normally give in cash. It doesn't guarantee that it won't be traded for cash to buy drugs and alcohol, but it's certainly more of a hassle to do that than to spend it on food.
There is one for addiction issues. Maybe it's more generally applicable, but it goes like this:
They are an addict, and somehow, each day, they are going to get whatever it is. And they are going to do it, because they have to do it.
And for some of these people who are homeless, they are going to do what they do, because they feel they have to do it...
In any case, getting that thing, whatever it is, can go the easy way, or the hard way. They could be giving blows in an alley, or pay with some money they got on the streets from kind people, or due to the property crime.
We can't make people do anything. Not really. They, themselves have got to resolve to improve, or do things differently, or they simply won't. We can put incentives out there, punishments, and all sorts of things, but in the end, they really do have to resolve to do things differently, or it really won't happen.
Every year, a few of these people get there. One day, they see something, experience something that brings that resolution about! And with that comes motivation, and with that motivation comes the doing of things differently.
Nobody but them knows when this is, and often they don't even know when this is.
And until they get there, it's the easy way, or the hard way.
If we look at the cost of this, those costs can be low, average, or high, depending on how often it's the easy way or the hard way.
And when they get there, how much potential remains? That too is determined by the easy way and the hard way.
So when we give, we are helping to pay down those costs. It's up to them to get there, and when they do, they will appreciate all of us who helped get them there at a much lower cost and risk to themselves as beings, and they will be capable of that much more too.
One of us, who gives that dollar, thinking they will just go buy another beer, will be that person who gave the dollar that got them there. They don't buy a beer, instead a razor, clean up and improve from there.
We can't make their choices for them, but we can continue to present the option of doing things differently, and that happens one gift, one less hard way at a time.
In general, we are helping out. And the help is in the form of harm reduction to preserve their options, health, and buy them time during their struggle.
If you think about it, real help, selfless type help, not controlling help that comes with strings and such, is a gift. It's a gift with the best of intent, and in this world intent is what matters.
When your intent is to help, you are doing the right thing --and it's the right thing even when it doesn't appear to have done much, or the bad outcome seems your doing.
It's not, and it can't be, because we can't make their choices. Only they can.
And if we don't give that help, so many more of them won't ever get there at all.
It's nothing to most of us. Every so often, it's all that ever did matter to them.
>why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room?
Maybe you missed the part where we had a huge recession that forced millions of people out of work and replaced high-paying jobs with low-paying part-time jobs.
But he's not asking the man to get a high paying job. He's wondering why he can't get a low paying job and rent out a cheap room. This man is single, young, and otherwise healthy with no dependents. In that situation it is certainly possible to live off minimum wage.
>> "In many regions, there aren't any cheap rooms -- not cheap enough to afford one on near-minimum wage."
I find that hard to believe. Even in London, where rent is expensive, minimum wage would be enough for a room (not a great one but not a horrible one either) and food. Minimum wage here is £6.50 but even assuming £5 p/h that's £800 per month. You can definitely find a room for £400-500 p/m. Maybe the situation is different in the US but London is one of the most expensive cities in the world and the effects of the recession are still a lot more obvious here than in the US where the economy has been doing much better.
I took it to mean that whilst they did not make a choice to become homeless initially, once in the situation, they have found a culture that works for them.
fwiw, there are homeless people who work, so it is not only people who do not work who are on the streets or in shelters.
Renting a room on craigslist does not remove you from being homeless, a lack of a permanent residence is what defines homeless, hence living in a shelter is still classed as being homeless, as is temporary accomodation (hotel or week to week room rent, or week to week couch surfing)
> If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant.
"Why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant."
"why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room?"
Other posts have explained why this is fallacious reasoning but I'll give it a shot anyway.
There's more to it than simply the physical, theoretical possibility of changing a situation.
I graduated fairly recently. Could I have worked in finance? Goldman, JPM, say? I don't think it's excessive hubris to say that it would have been theoretically possible. Then I'd be working towards owning the flat I'm currently renting.
But in reality, it didn't happen, and wasn't possible. I dislike finance, and to give 90+ hour weeks in a profession I have no faith in would have been unviable. There was no choice involved; after a fairly basic reasoning process it was excluded because it would have clearly led to failure.
I hope that it's easy to see how that can be generalised down the scale. I personally would rather be homeless than work FT for a fast food company, and I express disapproval at a society that makes that a 'choice' for some.
I think it's a matter of cost-benefit. On one hand, you have a rat race of soul crushing minimum wage work, always one slip away from the investment in hard work evaporating and being dropped right back on your ass. On the other, you sacrifice any chance of advancement to live with few obligations other than what it takes to survive. It might be more accurate to say that the person didn't choose to have this dichotomy, but given it, they chose the latter option.
Our culture is rather obsessed with the idea of wage labor as morally imperative and necessary to provide life with self-meaning. I can sympathize with the idea that to some, wage labor might subtract meaning from life. Especially if it's working at a Burger King to pay for a room at a flophouse.
If this is a truthful statement, why doesn't he get some sort of job and rent out a cheap room? He seems like he is sane and with the ability to work a labor job or a job at a fast-food restaurant.
Even on minimum wage, you could rent out a room on craigslist or a hotel for a weekly rate (I did this before and the prices haven't changed much). There are options for physically and mentally able individuals to get a roof over their head.
From the bottom of the article: “I’ve become a professional vagabond, and this is the lifestyle that I love.”
I think many of these people (not all) choose not to get a job because it's very empowering to live without having to follow many rules. It's a similar freedom to working for yourself.