

Why I'm considering giving to beggars. - jordanvisco
http://www.jordanvisco.com/why-im-considering-giving-to-beggars

======
potatolicious
The fundamental assumption here is that:

1 - A beggar will use the proceeds from begging to improve his/her life in a
semi-permanent way.

2 - The beggar is capable of "recovery" in the way most lay people perceive
the homeless.

Given that, in North America at least, homelessness goes practically hand in
hand with substance abuse, #1 is far from a safe assumption. More often than
not the proceeds of begging go straight back into booze and drugs.

Now, there's a certain school of thought where that doesn't matter - these
people have shite for lives, who are we to judge if they choose to numb
themselves in their hopeless situation. If I was to be homeless for the rest
of my life, with no hope of anything else, I probably _would_ start drinking.
masterzora pretty succinctly summarized it elsewhere in the thread.

Which leads to point #2, which is something I don't think a lot of people
really get. I don't claim to be an expert in this issue, but I've worked at
shelters and kitchens in the past - and the way I see it, a lot of these
people _really_ are hopeless.

The second factor that goes hand in hand with homelessness in America is
_mental illness_. That's something some people don't seem to be aware of.
Conservatives see the homeless as lazy good-for-nothings. Liberals see them as
simply people down on their luck. Both are based on the presumption that
becoming "normal" again is an option that is on the table. For a _large_
portion of the homeless population, this simply is not true. Even if you
resolve the substance dependencies, you still have a litany of mental health
issues that will prevent the bulk of these people from being "functioning"
members of society - functioning in the way that society normally expects of
its citizenry anyhow.

To circle back to the blog author's question:

> _"What if EVERYONE gave to beggars?"_

Then you will see an _explosion_ of begging, but _not_ a proportional
reduction in homelessness. The ratio of genuinely homeless/needy folk on the
street vs. profiteering "fake" beggars will become horrifically skewed. The
extra noise will mean greater difficulty in necessary social services from
reaching the people who need it. All in all, the genuinely poverty-stricken
homeless folk will suffer more than they already are today.

------
kls
I really like the article because it frames the situation well and looks at
both sides of the coin. There are a good deal of people that look on the
unfortunate with disdain, as if a large majority of them choose to live a life
of poverty. That they are just so lazy that they care more to fulfill their
lazy desire than to feed their stomach.

Reality is never so cut and dry, from schizophrenia to getting on drugs as a
child, to mentally escape the realities of their situation, few poor actually
choose their lot in life. The problem with giving to beggar is not that it
reinforces the behavior it is that it generally so insignificant that it does
little to help them pull out of their situation. Let's face it $10, $20 even
$300 bucks is not going to help change that persons life. They are so stuck in
a pattern of habitual poverty that it takes more than money to help them
correct their course. They have to unlearn being poor, because poor is not a
marketable skill. Some are even too far gone for that, either through mental
deficiencies, or habitual behavior some may never be able to be rehabilitated.

But one thing is certain, not given them a couple of bucks, is not doing them
any favors. Even if 10 of them use it for booze and drugs, that 11th one that
you give to and feeds her kids for the night is worth every penny that the
others use to chemically escape their realities. I can't say that if I where
in a similar situation that I would not drink and drug myself out of it. Which
goes to show, that not even they want to be in their situation. Anybody that
critically analyzes the situation would come to a similar conclusion.

Putting it all of the poor is just a way to walk away and feel good about ones
choice of doing so. There really is more honor in just admitting that they
can't be bothered to provide for the poor. They earned their money and have
every right to use it how they see fit, but those that hide behind
justification and villeinization are particularly contemptuous, because the
attitude is infectious and poisons the mind of others that may have given.

~~~
masterzora
_Even if 10 of them use it for booze and drugs, that 11th one that you give to
and feeds her kids for the night is worth every penny that the others use to
chemically escape their realities._

To be honest, I think it's worth those pennies for helping the first 10 as
well. To steal a quote from _Sports Night_ :

Isaac: _Danny, every morning I leave an acre and a half of the most beautiful
property in New Canaan, get on a train and come to work in a fifty-four story
glass high rise. In between I step over bodies to get here - 20, 30, 50 of 'em
a day. So, as I'm stepping over them I reach into my pocket and give them
whatever I've got._

Dan: _You're not afraid they're gonna spend it on booze?_

Isaac: _I'm hoping they're going to spend it on booze. Look, Dan, these
people, most of 'em, it's not like they're one hot meal away from turning it
around. For most of 'em the clock's pretty much run out. You'll be home soon
enough. What's wrong with giving them a little novacaine to get 'em through
the night?_

~~~
phuff
In this day and age even if you are afraid they're going to spend the money on
booze you can buy them a gift card to a nearby restaurant...

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
...which promptly can be sold for cash money.

~~~
phuff
On the beggar black market? :) I guess so... Seems like most of them would
probably just use it for food, though.

------
maratd
There are many ways to give to the poor and giving to the poor on a regular,
consistent schedule is in my humble opinion, a moral imperative.

However, giving handouts to beggars is a terrible idea. You are encouraging
loitering and more importantly, depending on the location, they can pull in
more cash than a menial job would. While that may leave a bad taste in your
mouth, that's not the worst of it. Keep in mind that when it comes to begging,
location is key. This invites competition and since the police nor the courts
will step in to resolve disputes between beggars claiming a corner ... well,
that will simply breed violence.

Please, just give money to a local organization that assists the poor, like a
soup kitchen.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Please, just give money to a local organization that assists the poor, like a
soup kitchen._

Or even better, give money to a charitable organization that assists
foreigners who are vastly poorer than every single person in the US.

------
mwsherman
Maybe it’s not about the self and one’s “philosophy”. When I see a person
begging (or otherwise doing something needy or disruptive), I ask the most
practical question possible:

Has this person had a harder day/week/month than I have? In another phrasing,
am I more privileged than this person, as a matter of luck?

The truth is, I know very little about the person except that they are
(ostensibly) suffering. The idea that my “encouragement” is going to affect
their behavior is terribly ignorant and self-centered.

They might be a wife-beater, or someone who’s simply been dealt a terrible
hand and can’t take care of themselves. Or both.

The idea that _my_ giving money will have a substantial negative impact on
this person is small and unknowable. It’s outweighed by the likelihood of a
positive impact.

This doesn’t mean I give a lot, or often. But I consider that a shortcoming,
not a philosophy.

~~~
jordanvisco
"The idea that my “encouragement” is going to affect their behavior is
terribly ignorant and self-centered."

This is why it would be nice if we could all be consistent in our
encouragement one way or the other. If we all did the same thing we might
actually make a difference.

------
phuff
This related article in which the reporter gave out prepaid charge cards to
beggars on the street helped change my ideas about the people who are
panhandling.

[http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/854018--how-
panhandl...](http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/854018--how-panhandlers-
use-free-credit-cards)

------
readme
Lots of beggars use drugs to cope with the fact that they have no homes.
Shelters are disgusting, in most cities, generally. If you don't believe that,
watch the documentary Streets of Plenty, or visit a few. Sure, there are a
couple nice ones here and there, but most are lurid.

With that said, I will give a beggar money and do not care if they use it to
buy drugs and alcohol. The only reason I wouldn't give a beggar money is if
they were the confrontational type that runs after you or ambushes you as you
open your car door. That is an instant no.

Finally, a great reason to give a beggar money is that many times charities
can't be trusted either. If you give the beggar money, you know you are going
_direct_. Cut out the middle man. Comedian Steve Hughes said it best here
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXpUwBJ2SS8>

------
ericmoritz
The truth of the matter is that witholding kindness is rarely going to cause
that person to hit rock bottom because there will often be another person that
will be kind. Given that fact, this tactic is appears ineffective. So what is
the most beneficial action in the situation?

------
gatlin
An idea I'm going to start doing now that I have savings and an inclination to
share my fortune:

1\. Donate to a local food bank / soup kitchen / church, etc which serves the
homeless.

2\. Hand out cards to beggars with the street address of the locations you've
donated to, and tell them you already bought them a meal.

Elsewhere in the thread, potatolicious points out that mental illness
(anecdotally) is a big factor in homelessness. I am fortunate enough to not
have any visible or debilitating illnesses and I had some great advantages in
life (globally-speaking).

It's tough walking a fine line between condescension and genuine sympathy. But
that's kind of a first world problem, isn't it?

------
oracuk
In the UK, especially in London the situation suggests I shouldn't give to
beggars, I should give to the homeless charities.

There are reportedly more hostel places than homeless people and those hostel
places are 'free at the point of delivery' to the homeless that use them.

There has been research done, supported I think by the homeless charities,
that suggests that the money given direct to some homeless is used to fuel
drink and drug addictions and may help cause a higher rate of death or serious
disease.

The recommendation (According to Radio 4 at least) is to give to the homeless
charities not to the homeless.

------
kstenerud
"Would it be possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street
did their utmost to help you out?"

Absolutely. It would become so lucrative to be a beggar that we'd see a
veritable explosion of beggars in no time.

~~~
jordanvisco
You don't think you'd stop begging at some point and try to do something
useful with your life if EVERYONE was nice to you and tried to help you out? I
know I would but maybe I'm different. Maybe I have too much confidence in
mankind and not enough respect for incentives.

~~~
kstenerud
Or maybe you just make the common mistake of assuming that everyone else
thinks the same way you do.

I'll share a little story about a friend of mine. His son came crying to him
one day because his homework wasn't done, so his wife did the child's homework
(to ensure that his grades didn't drop as a result of his negligence). 3
months later, both parents were doing ALL of this child's homework, because
he'd realized that if he didn't work, someone else would do the work for him.
He could sit around playing video games all day (yes, that's exactly what he
did) and anything unpleasant or difficult was handled by other people (his
parents).

That is, until his teacher figured it out. While his homework was always done
impeccably, his performance on tests were abysmal. The teacher rightfully
berated the parents, and not a moment too soon.

A second example comes via an old co-worker of mine who spent a large part of
his career under communist rule, but was absolutely disgusted at his co-
workers. Everyone did the bare minimum because there was no incentive to
perform or excel (everyone got paid the same regardless). And so naturally,
anyone aspiring to greatness and having some ambition left for a country where
performance was rewarded.

You see similar effects in well entrenched union jobs.

~~~
masterzora
_Or maybe you just make the common mistake of assuming that everyone else
thinks the same way you do._

And you're not doing the same?

~~~
kstenerud
I'm definitely not doing the same. I know that different people think
differently, and responses to the same stimuli will be all over the map. This
is why there's no such thing as Utopia, and why I take any one-size-fits-all
solution with a mountain of salt.

~~~
masterzora
Are you sure you're not? The thread pretty much looked like this when I posted
that:

 _"This won't work because people will react the way I think."_

 _"No, it will work because people will react the way I think."_

 _"You can't just assume everyone will think the same way as you. Here's some
anecdata to prove everyone thinks the same way I do."_

Please help me here, because I'm failing to see the difference. (Granted, I
think in both cases it's not so much "everyone thinks the way I do" as it is
"sufficiently many people think the same way I do", but all the same.)

~~~
kstenerud
Getting back to the original discussion, you were arguing in favor of the
amount of beggars going down if everyone helped them out. Beggars are already
a tiny minority in the population (around 3.5 million people will be homeless
in a given year, and only around 25% of those turn to begging, out of a
population of 300 million). In order for begging to quadruple, only 1% of
people would have to think like those in the examples I gave before. So if 10%
of people think like that (and I suspect it's much higher than 10%), you'd get
a 40x increase in begging.

~~~
masterzora
I think you should read the names of posters, but I am more than happy to take
the position you stated so we'll call it good.

I think what you are leaving out of your analysis is that, in this scenario,
there is no _compulsion_ to help the beggars. Thus, if everyone actually is
helping they are doing for their own reasons: that it is good, that it is
right, that they want to help. I find it hard to imagine that a significant
number doing so would then take advantage of the same system in the manner
that you describe.

 _"But_ ", you say _"it is ridiculous to even assume that everyone is going to
willfully give as such in the first place."_ This much is obvious, so trying
to comment on the above utopian ideal has its limits. I am inclined to
believe, however, that if everyone who actually would be willing to help
beggars of their own accord to make things better did help that it is likely
that this would only be done in such numbers that the beggars could be helped
but not such that it would become such a lucrative market as posters have
described.

~~~
kstenerud
If you look at the top comment, I was originally responding to "Would it be
possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street did their
utmost to help you out?", and the answer is clearly "yes". Furthermore, if
everyone who passed a beggar on the street did their utmost to help out, there
would be an explosion of beggars, as I demonstrated in my previous comment.

Also, it does not require everyone to think the same way for this to happen;
in fact, very few people have to think this way. Therefore, in response to
your first post, I am not making the common mistake of assuming that everyone
else thinks the same way I do.

I don't mind other people giving to beggars, but one thing I have noticed is
that beggar-friendly cities tend to attract far more beggars (San Francisco
and Vancouver are two that come to mind).

~~~
masterzora
_If you look at the top comment, I was originally responding to "Would it be
possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street did their
utmost to help you out?", and the answer is clearly "yes". Furthermore, if
everyone who passed a beggar on the street did their utmost to help out, there
would be an explosion of beggars, as I demonstrated in my previous comment._

I still fail to see how you demonstrated that. You have failed to take into
consideration important variables that I have attempted to address. In
particular, you have applied a type of thinking that some people have today to
a situation that would necessarily require them to have a different type of
thinking. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to simply transfer it over as
such. Granted, we don't have a whole lot of experience with a society where
everybody is individually motivated to help, but I think you'll find at the
very least that the people who are altruistically inclined to help the
homeless or what have you these days don't really decide to swindle everyone.

 _Also, it does not require everyone to think the same way for this to happen;
in fact, very few people have to think this way._

I'm not sure I agree that 1 in 100 is "very few", but point taken.

 _I don't mind other people giving to beggars, but one thing I have noticed is
that beggar-friendly cities tend to attract far more beggars (San Francisco
and Vancouver are two that come to mind)._

This point is simply irrelevant unless you mean to suggest that the increase
is due to people trying to take advantage of the lucrative beggar market
rather than working.

~~~
kstenerud
"In particular, you have applied a type of thinking that some people have
today to a situation that would necessarily require them to have a different
type of thinking."

… Which would require everyone to think the same way, which doesn't happen in
reality, which is why I've deliberately ignored the absolute extreme. The OP
was referring at worst to a utopia, at best (and most likely) to a "near
utopia" using imperfect language to communicate such, while I was bringing
that utopia down to earth by showing that it only takes 0.25% of the
population taking advantage of kindness in order for the problem to become
worse than it already is. We already know that all people do NOT think exactly
the same, and so arguing with absolutes is pointless.

"This point is simply irrelevant unless you mean to suggest that the increase
is due to people trying to take advantage of the lucrative beggar market
rather than working."

That is precisely what I suggest. Any time a power efficiency is discovered,
people move in to take advantage of it. This has been happening since the dawn
of life. In this case, it is an efficiency for acquiring money. The more
people give to beggars, the easier it will be to live off the proceeds of
begging, the more people will consider it a better use of their time compared
to what they're doing now. Quite obviously, efficiency won't be the only
factor in the decision (other factors, such as pride, come into play as well),
but each factor will be weighted differently by different people. It is often
said, every man has his price. And though that statement is technically
absolute, I do not believe it absolutely, nor is it meant to be taken that
way.

~~~
masterzora
_which is why I've deliberately ignored the absolute extreme_

You are a confusing individual. I try to discuss moving away from the extreme
and you insist you were commenting on the extreme. I try to meet you there and
discuss the extreme and you insist you are avoiding the extreme. If you're
going to keep pushing the goal posts back and forth like that I don't know why
we're bothering to discuss anything at all.

 _That is precisely what I suggest._

I won't deny that a few people are likely taking advantage of the situation,
but you need to drop the notion that anything resembling a significant
fraction of beggars are doing so by choice. Said notion is disgusting,
offensive, and untrue.

~~~
kstenerud
We're talking across each other now.

My discussions of the extreme have always revolved around the pointlessness of
arguing that way. The OP MAY have been serious in taking the extreme, but it's
far more likely that he was using a what-if line of thought to guide his
thinking in a less perfect world. However, that what-if scenario lacks reality
guards in that it requires that everyone think the same way, which does not
happen.

My responses have been designed to push away from the extreme and inject some
reality into the discussion. The reality is that some people DO take advantage
of kindness. Some people really ARE lazy. Some people ARE con men. So the
absolute is disproven by default, which means all that is left is to assume
the other person really meant "what if if a lot more people thought this
way...". Otherwise the conversation is over already.

"but you need to drop the notion that anything resembling a significant
fraction of beggars are doing so by choice. Said notion is disgusting,
offensive, and untrue."

No such notion was intended. As I said before, many different factors come
into play when deciding whether to beg or not. My point is that making begging
more lucrative will make the decision easier for more people. If the returns
for begging were to surpass low wage jobs, for example, we'd see a critical
tipping point emerge. The end result of more giving to beggars (on a larger
scale) is more beggars. The current equilibrium exists as a result of the
diversity of the population (both on the potential beggar side and the
potential giver side).

My personal belief is that a significant increase in giving to beggars is
likely to cause more harm than good. The current equilibrium seems adequate
for taking care of most of the truly hopeless who aren't wards of the state.

------
Tichy
I consider the social insurance in Germany the price for keeping beggars off
the street (among other things).

Just saying that the suggestion in the article is already somewhat implemented
in places.

~~~
SilasX
On my last trip to Germany (1998, ~2 weeks in each of Nuremburg, Berlin, and
Freiburg with a host family), there was no shortage of beggars on the street.

You're not getting your _Geld_ 's worth, if you know what I _meine_.

~~~
Tichy
I know, it isn't really working :-) But I think most beggars are probably
mentally deranged, so that they are incapable of receiving the benefits.

Also there are now proposals to pay a base income to everyone, without fuss,
but it is doubtful if it will ever be implemented. And nobody knows what would
be the effect.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Really? No one knows what the effect would be of paying people a base income
regardless of whether or not they work? I think we've seen ample evidence over
the last century of _exactly_ what the effect would be.

~~~
SilasX
Where? Most of the programs you probably have in mind stop paying you once you
stop doing irresponsible crap. That has fundamentally different incentive
effects than a guaranteed income that pays irrespective how responsible you
are or how much you work. For example it would not impose a high effective
marginal tax rate on those who work a part-time job (like unemployment
benefits or welfare do).

Its effect would be more like that of Social Security (with untaxed benefits,
and judged purely from the standpoint of post-retirement).

------
nazgulnarsil
In your mythical society I would never work another day in my life.

~~~
Tichy
You are also evil, if my memory of LOTR serves me correctly :-)

~~~
nazgulnarsil
systems that only achieve equilibrium in the absence of evil are foolish.

------
ryanwaggoner
_Would it be possible to be a beggar if everyone who passed you on the street
did their utmost to help you out? Not for long I wouldn't think._

Actually, you're right, but not for the reason you think. If everyone gave
money to beggars every-time they saw one, pretty soon we would have nothing
but beggars.

~~~
masterzora
I disagree. If everyone is willingly and of their own volition giving money to
beggars every time they saw one in an effort to make things better (note that
the post is not about any sort of mandatory giving or a government program or
anything else of the sort) it seems silly to conclude that everyone, or even
most people, would then become beggars.

On the flip side, _"If NO ONE gives to beggars there won't be any beggars!"_
is also correct, but not for the reason given. Reality is that most beggars
would die relatively quickly because they're not there by choice or because
they think that begging to live is better than finding a job. Yes, a few _are_
there by choice for one reason or another, but I really hate the world where
people choose to let the honest ones dies to spite the few freeloaders.

