U.K. News, Why you should give money directly and unconditionally to homeless people

I like this article. I kind of prefer the "housing first" way to manage homelessness - - get them a little apartment with a bed and a bathroom and maybe a kitchenette. Once they have a safe place to stay they can deal with their problems. I found this article. It doesn't talk about the benefits of housing first but I will try to find a better one. The U.S. Declared War On Veteran Homelessness — And It Actually Could Win

Well I posted a different reply but I don't see it and I found the article about housing first that I was looking for. Getting homeless people into housing can save money by keeping people out of the ER and other emergency treatment. Anyway. See how this sounds. Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How

Johnboy53 said:

Don’t just buy them a sandwich from Pret. They’re not four. They have the right to spend their money as they choose – and it is their money, once given. Don’t just give to people performing, singing, or accompanied by a cute dog. Buskers deserve a wage too, of course. But homeless people are not your dancing monkey and they shouldn’t have to perform to earn your pity.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...-directly-and-unconditionally-homeless-people

Click to expand...

The majority of homeless people I have known spend money given to them on strong alcohol

Interesting idea that could actually be applied to many forms of social welfare spending, but never will because modern society simply can't cope with people making "incorrect" choices.

Hate this idea. Think it's stupid.

Most homeless folks are missing something just as vital as money; a sense they are valued. When you take a homeless person out for a meal and, dare I say, listen to things they tell you (about...gasp...their life maybe?), there is value in that. Tossing money at them and thinking you are BETTER than those people who are acknowledging their existence and connecting with them, is the exact opposite of charity in my view.

"I've tossed a quid at ol' Stinky Tom by the Tescos" is, in no way (in my mind) a healthy, meaningful form of charity. It is SOMETHING, but not much more than nothing in my mind.

Not only that but it kicks off, near the start, with a mighty huge presumption:

Those who think begging is a shortcut to easy money should try humiliating themselves daily in front of thousands of total strangers who won’t even look at them or acknowledge their existence.

Click to expand...

Assumption 1#
It's humiliating. There are plenty of humiliating jobs that get done by people. Unsolicited, I doubt we would say those jobs are "humiliating" but people doing those jobs may still be looked down upon. The fact that we believe panhandling is "humiliating" is a cultural construct.
Assumption 2#
They feel humiliated. Now granted, many, many of them do. And I TOTALLY understand why they do and it sucks and I wish they didn't. But you don't empower people by tossing cash at them to spend how they want. You empower them by making them feel valued.
Assumpiont 3#

I know MANY people who have offered food to the homeless in parking lots only to be angrily turned away cause they weren't giving cash. Their argument was not "Hey. Why can't you give me cash so I can feel empowered?". The argument was "What F******** good is a sandwhich to me??"

To be clear though, I'm not saying DON'T give money to homeless people. But I take GREAT umbrage at the idea that buying food or giving them food is worthy of negative judgement.

I don't agree. I tend to pick cat food for my cats , over Homeless people, that want to buy alcohol or drugs. When I was taking a walk a few days ago. A women asked me for water. I had a long walk. And didn't want to give her my water. So I offered to buy water for her . That cost $1.60 to $2.00. She wanted to go to the liquor store out of my way. And she tried to tell me she needed at least $10 for water .And she didn't want me to go to the liquor store. So I didn't giver her $10 for water or alcohol. It's best to remember my cats or myself are more important, than some woman trying to stay buzzed.

rambot said:

Assumption 1#
It's humiliating. There are plenty of humiliating jobs that get done by people. Unsolicited, I doubt we would say those jobs are "humiliating" but people doing those jobs may still be looked down upon. The fact that we believe panhandling is "humiliating" is a cultural construct.

Click to expand...

The strange thing is that the existence of professional beggars has been documented across numerous time periods and various parts of the world. The article seems to suggest that no one would willingly beg for money when they had other options, as though it were hypothetical whether anyone would make the choice. But in reality we know that people have chosen to beg as a career and in the future there will certainly be people who make the same choice.

The article also ignores that the humiliation of begging largely comes from the fact that people forced into begging would rather be doing something more productive. They are also humiliated because they are laying bare to society how poor their life is. But if you choose to be a beggar, and if you do so in a situation where you have a comfortable home to go back to, neither form of humiliation cuts nearly as hard, and over time I imagine you'd learn to ignore any remaining humiliation that you do feel (especially if you are getting a decent amount of cash out of it).

Now I don't think that just because some beggars are beggars by career that this is a justification for ignoring all beggars. But I don't see where we get anywhere by denying reality.

Trogdor the Burninator said:

Interesting idea that could actually be applied to many forms of social welfare spending, but never will because modern society simply can't cope with people making "incorrect" choices.

Click to expand...

The shockingly simple, surprisingly cost-effective way to end homelessness

i like this article onit best.


someone once said not to worry if homeless people buy drugs or alcohol with money given them because 1. they will buy it anyways and 2. this way they dont have to steal to buy self-medication

i think really the issue is that they need housing, and its hard to survive without it. many homeless , esp these days, dont drink or do drugs - but some do.

and no one can expect someone to get sober from the street. its too chaotic to wrestle with addiction and win. they need stability.

so - they all need huosing. period. and until they get it, tey need help surviving...

peace

MoonlessNight said:

The strange thing is that the existence of professional beggars has been documented across numerous time periods and various parts of the world. The article seems to suggest that no one would willingly beg for money when they had other options, as though it were hypothetical whether anyone would make the choice. But in reality we know that people have chosen to beg as a career and in the future there will certainly be people who make the same choice.

The article also ignores that the humiliation of begging largely comes from the fact that people forced into begging would rather be doing something more productive. They are also humiliated because they are laying bare to society how poor their life is. But if you choose to be a beggar, and if you do so in a situation where you have a comfortable home to go back to, neither form of humiliation cuts nearly as hard, and over time I imagine you'd learn to ignore any remaining humiliation that you do feel (especially if you are getting a decent amount of cash out of it).

Now I don't think that just because some beggars are beggars by career that this is a justification for ignoring all beggars. But I don't see where we get anywhere by denying reality.

Click to expand...

i think anyone who chooses to beg when they dont need it has a screw loose - i'm talking about people who have a physiological failure to comprehend morality - especially anyone doing it on a recurring basis. the point is It IS degrading to beg. for strangers to look at you , judge you, and usually reject you is not something tolerable. anyone not motivated by hunger or other desperation , who doesn't really Need it - probably lacks feelings. I would consider them the small part of the population that lacks the feeling to feel shame - shameless people. Psychopaths frequently are shameless. Soiciopaths and psychopaths are the bread and butter of common criminals - people who are incapable of much or certain feelings. who do not feel shame, who do not feel empathy for their victims.

They have trouble with things such as moral or moral behavior, beacuse of their illness. we know these people exist, they are a small fraction of the population, less than 1%. we know they lie, steal, cheat, scam, con.... not many people like to set fire to things, but some do - so we are very aware of this and wary.

so of course, where there is opportunity - a conman will seek it. these are laws of nature, no? parasites and predators?

the point is, are we to focus on this small percentage of the population, and ruin it for the rest? or even slander the average person needing help?

I like what was said above, about talking to people. talking to them and buying them food, is the best way to find out if they really need money for something else - like a prescrption, or over the counter health care items - like supplies for a wound.


Isn't this the main problem? that we dont know these people?

Isnt this the failure of society? how can commnunity function if people dont know people to support eachother?

how communit yfunction if people aren't communing?

must we not commune to have community?

clearly these people are suffering from dysfunctional commnity.

and why?

What is the rest of society doing?

aren't they watching TV or on the internet?

Haven't most well off people done so much to isolate from the rest of the world?

isn't there a total failure to communicate within society now?

Peace