What happens if you give panhandlers a pre-paid credit card.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

but there are a lot of people on the street with serious mental issues that our pompous, chest-puffed-out, world-leading, equality-for-everyone healthcare system has completely abandoned. And as you said, there's people who are just down on their luck and maybe just weren't born as lucky as you or I.

.

Another example where just throwing money at something doesn't solve problems. We could spend trillions on our health care system and it wouldn't help any for people who have serious mental issues and have been reduced to walking the streets begging for money.

What we really need is local community initiative to create centers that can take these people in and help them. Shelters are a great example of that, and its interesting that many of them are privately funded.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

...and possibly not that far off of how people on this board spend their money.

How much do you spend a month on booze, because if the average person makes $45,000 a year (a rough estimate) 18% of total income would be the equivalent of spending $675/month on alcohol.

Plus in terms of dollars spent, it would equal out to 30%.

The other question I have is how the reporter selected the people, as it is pretty easy to determine which homeless will spend money on booze/drugs and which will spend it on food, clothing and the like... plus if you work around the homeless you will know that a lot of them will spit out lies like no ones business, which is generally a result of mental illnesses that many of them have and I wouldn't trust a word that the average homeless person tells me. If I ever do see someone that is homeless that I feel needs help, I will buy them food, but I will never give them any money, too good a chance is winds up paying for some cheap beer or original listerine and the majority of the ones I have met (generally as a result of work) are not friendly people at all but in fact just the opposite and I like to try and give people a chance.

Originally Posted by Azure

.

Another example where just throwing money at something doesn't solve problems. We could spend trillions on our health care system and it wouldn't help any for people who have serious mental issues and have been reduced to walking the streets begging for money.

What we really need is local community initiative to create centers that can take these people in and help them. Shelters are a great example of that, and its interesting that many of them are privately funded.

There is only so much that can be done, if someone doesn't take their medication then all the community outreach programs in the world aren't going to do anything. I know many people rally against them, but the institutions of yesteryear were good for actually forcing those who need treatment to get treatment. Abuses did unfortunately take place but it was safer for the community as a whole and for those with mental issues as well.

[BloodFetish]

I worked in downtown Vancouver for over 10 years, about 4 blocks away from the intersection of Hastings and Main streets. For those that don't know the streets, this intersection is at the heart of the infamous "downtown east side".

The homeless people were part of everyday life there. In our back alley, which had lots of nooks and crannies to get out of site, most mornings there would be needles, condoms, human waste, or garbage pulled out the dumpsters and strewn about. Sometimes people would still be sleeping in the middle of that cesspit. For over three months a guy named Colin slept under a 5 step wood-framed staircase behind our store.

The homeless were usually some combination of junkies, mentally ill, or down on their luck. Only a few people through the years were belligerent or a cause for alarm, but usually if someone was doing drugs behind the store they'd pick up and go somewhere else if you asked nicely.

I learned pretty quickly that giving money to the homeless was no solution, and I know for a fact a good chunk of whatever I gave them went to the liquor store a block away, junk food, or straight into their veins. I stopped giving money and instead would offer to buy them food. It was a weeding out process, you see, because once money wasn't a possibility the junkies lost interest while the down-on-your-luckers would usually take me up on it.

What really bugged me were the ones put on the sad face and made up stories to get money. "My car is broken down and I need to get to Chilliwack", was a line one guy gave me on two consecutive Saturdays. When I called him on it on week two he got pissy and walked away. The story tellers created an atmosphere of mistrust downtown and as a result some people in genuine need found it harder to get help. That's my theory, anyway.

[You Need a Thneed]

What's a bigger "scam", the panhandlers, or the prepaid credit cards? I'd say the prepaid credit cards.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

How much do you spend a month on booze, because if the average person makes $45,000 a year (a rough estimate) 18% of total income would be the equivalent of spending $675/month on alcohol.

2007 median income in Canada was 24k. We are nowhere near 45,000 as a average income.

Edit: that’s median. Average is around 30k. So you’d have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90 dollars a week to hit 18% of after-tax income. Doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me.

[mykalberta]

Did the reporter tell the people he was monitoring their purchases?

Also, $53.85 was spent on Alcohol out of the $183.74 spent so the % of money spent on Alcohol was 29%. I dont think 18% is accurate because $300 wasnt the total amount spent.

Laurie sounds like other than some health issues she was the A+ student of the bunch.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

2007 median income in Canada was 24k. We are nowhere near 45,000 as a average income.

Edit: that’s median. Average is around 30k. So you’d have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90 dollars a week to hit 18% of after-tax income. Doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me.

It seems pretty unreasonable to me, especially if you are only making 24k, but some people have different priorities than others. Despite that, I am sure there are many non-homeless people who spend that much or more at the bar on a single night, not even counting the rest of their weekly intake

However, that % is probably skewed. It is taken as a % of that subset of their money, not their entire income, which is obviously more, unless they are the worst panhandlers in the world.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

18% of the money allocated to the experiment was spent on booze. That’s not as high as I bet most people would have guessed.

Other ways to interpret it: 29.3% of the money spent was at the LCBO.

Assuming cigarettes cost $20, 40.1% of the money spent was on non-survival items.

60% of the panhandlers did not return the card as requested.

0% of the money was spent in a sustainable, long term based manner. I consider this to be stuff like food that isn't exorbitantly expensive (Mcdonald's or a restaurant), medications, clothing, hygiene related products.

I don't know. I understand that we are supposed to realize that most homeless are supposed to be down on their luck, but the data really does not support that conclusion. It supports that the homeless are no different than you or I. When people are faced with an unexpected windfall, it is rarely used in a manner that will benefit them the most. I'm sure if some of us won the lotto or something, a much larger % than usual will be spent on completely ridiculous items.

[IliketoPuck]

If I were to spend 18% of my monthly income on booze, I would become completely dysfunctional.

Like the post above states, the % spent on non survival goods is a good reason to buy someone down on their luck a sandwhich instead of giving them $5.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Did the reporter tell the people he was monitoring their purchases?

Also, $53.85 was spent on Alcohol out of the $183.74 spent so the % of money spent on Alcohol was 29%. I dont think 18% is accurate because $300 wasnt the total amount spent.

Laurie sounds like other than some health issues she was the A+ student of the bunch.

I found her to be the biggest liar and feel the reporter got duped into giving her a second card. I have very little doubt she spent the first card.

I've dealt with many many down and out people. Even when you think you can be 100% sure that they are telling you the truth, they aren't.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

2007 median income in Canada was 24k. We are nowhere near 45,000 as a average income.

Edit: that’s median. Average is around 30k. So you’d have to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90 dollars a week to hit 18% of after-tax income. Doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me.

If you are younger and going to the clubs/pubs then it would seem not to high, I did it too once.

But almost $100 a week to drink at home is very high and I drink top shelf brands.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Other ways to interpret it: 29.3% of the money spent was at the LCBO.

Assuming cigarettes cost $20, 40.1% of the money spent was on non-survival items.

60% of the panhandlers did not return the card as requested.

0% of the money was spent in a sustainable, long term based manner. I consider this to be stuff like food that isn't exorbitantly expensive (Mcdonald's or a restaurant), medications, clothing, hygiene related products.

I don't know. I understand that we are supposed to realize that most homeless are supposed to be down on their luck, but the data really does not support that conclusion. It supports that the homeless are no different than you or I. When people are faced with an unexpected windfall, it is rarely used in a manner that will benefit them the most. I'm sure if some of us won the lotto or something, a much larger % than usual will be spent on completely ridiculous items.

Every single one of the accounted-for cards were used to buy food!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Every single one of the accounted-for cards were used to buy food!

I think he expected them to buy groceries and then go home and cook the groceries. Waitaminute...

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I think he expected them to buy groceries and then go home and cook the groceries. Waitaminute...

Yeah, pre-packaged or finished foods at large chain grocery stores don't exist. I must be dreaming up the $2 pre-packaged sandwich that I'm currently eating.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yeah, pre-packaged or finished foods at large chain grocery stores don't exist. I must be dreaming up the $2 pre-packaged sandwich that I'm currently eating.

That's funny. IIRC, a double cheeseburger from rotton ronnies is $1.29. I guess it's the bums that are laughing at you.

[IliketoPuck]

No, the bum that sold me a transit ticket for $2.00 when retail is $2.40 makes me laugh......

[4X4]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

No, the bum that sold me a transit ticket for $2.00 when retail is $2.40 makes me laugh......

Probably was given to him free at a temporary employment or drop in center type place. I think that's the first rule of living on the street. If it's valuable, but free, take it whether you need it or not, then sell it.

[IliketoPuck]

True enough. If its free then he saved me .75 and made himself 2.00.

If he saved up and bought himself a booklet to sell individually, I think he needs to rethink his margins....

[ken0042]

^^ Or he asked somebody for change to take the train to his doctor's appointment, and that person thinking they were smart gave them a bus ticket; because "you cannot use a bus ticket to buy booze."

And yes, I have been the guy who thought he was smart, only to watch said bus ticket get resold for $1.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't know. I understand that we are supposed to realize that most homeless are supposed to be down on their luck, but the data really does not support that conclusion. It supports that the homeless are no different than you or I. When people are faced with an unexpected windfall, it is rarely used in a manner that will benefit them the most. I'm sure if some of us won the lotto or something, a much larger % than usual will be spent on completely ridiculous items.

This is really the crux of it. I can’t remember if it was in the article or in the comments (or maybe it was here), but it was noted that the amounts handed out were roughly equal to what a panhandler can expect to make daily on the street in Toronto, so in effect they were being given the day “off". It wasn’t enough money to effect even a week-long change to their lifestyle or consumption habits. They can buy the basic necessities they need tomorrow.

Which makes me wonder what the point of the exercise was at all - was the author of the article genuinely interested in helping these people? Or just using 300 bucks to fund an article so the paper can sell some more advertising on a page. The author doesn’t make any conclusions or attempt to offer any insight at all, so now I’m not sure what to make of it.