just wondering

  • Last@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Yes, it’s better to give it directly to the people who need it, when they need it, instead of them having to rely on a third party for help. Donate to organizations that won’t pocket most of the money, but if you have a chance to give it directly to someone, I think that’s better.

  • 🐋 Color 🍁 ♀@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    If you want to, yes. When I see them I try and buy them some food. I also give to the local charities which support them.

  • Moops@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    I personally do not, but I think it’s a personal decision. I have a background in working for homeless non-profits. If you have a desire to really help and be part of moving towards a solution, find a local group and donate and/or volunteer with them.

    The reality of handing money to someone is at best it’s a band-aid, and more often you’re just buying that night’s substance of choice. No judgement there, if I was homeless and likely not receiving needed medical and mental health treatment, I’d be high and drunk as often as I could too. Hell, I’m high as often as I can be now. Nevertheless though, I feel comfortable choosing not to participate by handing money when asked and I don’t begrudge anyone who does.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      exactly how i do it, and i make sure 50% of my professional life i’m sacrificing income to work for not for profits. i want my donation to be the most effective it can be, and making sure that people have roofs over their head isn’t going to happen with my spare change

  • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    My opinion is no. They can then use it to buy drugs or alcohol, which is unfortunately likely.

    Maybe you could donate to some homeless shelter?
    Or maybe, you could try asking if you could buy them some food instead.

    • unmagical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      Housed people buy drugs and alcohol. Unhoused people buy drugs and alcohol.

      Why is it so much more evil for the latter?

        • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          You sit outside on a cold street with just a blanket at 3am when your life has fucking disintegrated and tell me alcohol and drugs are pointless, you daftie

          • akkajdh999@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            I didn’t say that doing drugs is pointless. Assisting homeless people buying drugs IS, because it does the opposite of helping to get out of that situation, which is the point.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            That’s cool! I’m willing to bet that’s outside of the norm for most folks. If y’all want to prove me wrong I’ll happily provide a venmo ;)

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      wtf?!? Is this Lemmy?? How did this comment get more likes than dislikes? I’m gonna post the same thing and see what happens.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      Who are you to decide what they’re allowed to buy? You’d rather have someone go hungry on the off chance they might buy something you don’t agree with?

        • Lumidaub@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          Giving another person money usually implies the transfer of ownership of that money to that other person, unless otherwise specified.

            • Lumidaub@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              24 days ago

              Sure. And depending on the circumstances the conditions might not make you look like a very nice person. Which you are of course free to ignore.

      • molave@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 days ago

        It’s ultimately an assessment done in a case by case basis. Another example: will you give money to a relative who will use it for gambling? Helping someone turn around their life and enabling their habits are different things.

        • Lumidaub@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          If my relative wants to gamble with the 2 Currency that I’ve given them, okay then.

          • akkajdh999@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            24 days ago

            That’s the point of the original comment and you are bullshitting “how dare you decide what they buy!”. They own the money and they decide that they won’t spend money to improve a homeless person life if it won’t improve it.

            • Lumidaub@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              24 days ago

              The point is to help this person temporarily alleviate a problem they have, whatever that problem may be. If you don’t want to do this, fine, but if you’re only willing to give money if they use that money in ways that you deem wholesome, that’s patronising.

              • akkajdh999@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                help this person temporarily alleviate a problem they have

                And you mean drinking fucking alcohol lmao. Yeah it’s gonna made them feel better for a minute, sure, lol. And fuck them up even worse after that. It’s like giving drugs to drug addicts, wtf.

                in ways that you deem wholesome, that’s patronising.

                No onre said “wholesome”. If so, trying to help honeless people is “patronozing” then generally. Goverment is “partonizing”. Organizations that want to help them are “patronizing”.

                People on lemmy are SO deranged.

  • finderscult@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Yes.

    Yes, they might use it for drugs or alcohol, that’s fine, it’s as important as food sometimes.

    Non profits and charities are great in theory, but most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless look at LA’s projects as the most glaring example, it “takes” 10 million+ per single housing unit for temporary housing. Not due to cost, but simply corruption at every level. From the non profits involved to the government itself.

    Giving directly to the homeless skips all that.

    Or to put it another way, you can’t fix the problem or treat symptoms by continuing to give money to the cause of the problem. Giving directly at least treats the symptom.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless

      this is a very very bad way to think about charitable giving. if your aim is to get as much money to solving homelessness as possible, you want advertising and marketing campaigns, you want efficiency (but people working on a problem is “overhead” whilst their solutions to make things cheaper mean less money that “makes it to” solving the problem at hand)

      this video does an excellent job at describing the problem

      https://youtu.be/bfAzi6D5FpM

      • finderscult@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        That’s nice, but there is no excuse for higher overhead than the amount of money actually spent on the problem, when the problem objectively can be solved by direct expenditure.

        We know how to eliminate homelessness and the causes behind it even in a capitalist society. It doesn’t cost a billion per 100 transitional housing units.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 days ago

          and that all requires organisation, and organisation isn’t free - in fact the structures required to organise things like that are more expensive than the cost actually spent on the problem … you don’t just up and build houses - that’s not how any of this works… ask anyone that’s built a house, and they’re not even doing it on a large scale where complexity goes up significantly, or dealing with distributing money in a manner that they have to makes sure their expenditures are justified rather than just being able to make decisions for themselves

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    the biggest failure that happens when we give resources directly to homeless people is not also providing the support systems that prevent the relapse in the first place. we dont provide for social services that give them regular human contact that has been proven to lower drug and alcohol addiction issues.

    ‘non-profits’… charities… are just not enough to provide these services, it needs to be a systemic, over-arching process and not the one-off solutions those ‘non profit’ agencies provide.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    My opinion is no. They can then use it to buy drugs or alcohol, which is unfortunately likely.

    Maybe you could donate to some homeless shelter?
    Or maybe, you could try asking if you could buy them some food instead.

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    No. People are strapped in finances as is. My money right now is needed for expenses, I don’t have that much disposable income to be tossing it around to people. There’s thousands of homeless people out there. They need more help than just a couple dollars.

  • unmagical@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Yes, if you have the means.

    I work with a mutual aid group that engages in street outreach. I experience a lot of different cases and pretty much all of them would be benefitted by having more money.

    Some people have a job, but not a home, and are trying to get housed

    Some people have a home, but not a job and are trying to stay housed

    Some people have neither and are trying to stay alive

    Some people have both, but are so underpaid for the area they are in and are trying to stay housed

    Some people are migrants and it is 100% illegal for them to work in the US and their only source of aid is through asking the community

    Not one of them enjoys the situation they are in nor has made an explicit choice to be or stay homeless.

    A lot of people who panhandle stay in encampments. These provide a small community with a lot of support structures for those there. There’s often someone who knows how to cook anything with any source of heat, someone who knows how to treat wounds, someone who knows what each person in the camp needs, and someone who’s plugged into the broader community and can get things for those who can’t (not all food pantries or lines are accommodating for wheelchair users and those with mobility issues can have trouble waiting for hours for food or even getting there). My point being that even if your contribution doesn’t help the person asking directly, it likely helps someone they know.

    And if you’re worried about the whole “they’ll just spend it on drugs” thing, I honestly wouldn’t. Among the people I work with maybe 1/3 of them use drugs and very very few use anything other than weed. Employed and housed people use weed to unwind, why is it so much more evil if you don’t have a house? And if you’re working with the 2/3 of people that don’t use drugs than it’s not really a concern. I do realize that those numbers might be vastly different in areas that were more harshly hit by opioid issues.

  • TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    I keep some cash in my pocket specifically in case I run across someone asking for money.

    And then I live like a hermit, almost never going anywhere, so it’s rare that I actually have occasion to give in that way, but you know.

    Also, in my experience, it’s not necessarily homeless people who need the money. I’ve seen people (claiming they’re) close to losing their housing who are hoping to raise enough money panhandling to make their rent this month.

    Of course, if you are struggling financially, it’s definitely very reasonable to decline to give in that context. I suppose if anything feels “off” as well. (Though I wouldn’t want to bias folks in the direction of thinking that there may be any reason to be more suspicious of people in need than others.) But over all, I do think it’s something that can make a hugely, vitally positive change in someone’s basic wellbeing.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    I never give money to the homeless. They’ll just buy drugs and alcohol.

    I keep it for myself. So I can buy drugs and alcohol.

    For real though, I try to give $5 if I can. Some people will waste it, some will make good use of it, and it’s impossible to tell from the outside looking in. So I might as well swing at every ball. Giving to charities is good too, but they don’t reach everyone (for all sorts of reasons).

  • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    Depends where you live. I have given money to homeless people three times in my life, all while I was a child. All three times, my generosity was met with “don’t you have any more”. I’ve learned my lesson, at least.

    Here, the social safety net is giving these people more than enough to pay for the homeless shelter and groceries. My change isn’t going to buy them anything the government isn’t allowing them to buy anyway. Sure, there are lots of things that can be improved about the safety net (and the housing, and everything else), but you don’t need to go hungry here.

    I’m no longer giving money to beggars. If you want to help, fund local charities. Donating stuff is often appreciated, but what charities really need to help is cold hard cash, so that’s the best way to help the most people.

    Also be wary of beggar gangs if they’re active in your country. Some criminal organisations will send out children, women, and anyone looking sad and unfortunate enough in an attempt to get strangers to donate money to them. A well-placed beggar can earn way more than a day’s wage, and criminals are eager to abuse that.

    If your country doesn’t have a good social safety net, I’d still donate to charities before I’d give any money to the homeless directly, but it does change the situation a lot. I guess it depends on how good the local charities are (i.e. are they money hogs, do they require people to join their religion for aid, are they corrupt).

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    I don’t because I’m concerned that they would use my generous gift to just go out and buy drugs. And that may be cruel of me. But I would rather donate to a charity that feeds the homeless, such as a soup kitchen. Or if I see somebody that would look hungry, I would rather buy them a meal directly than give them the money for it.