It would be dangerous if everybody not poor wanted nothing to do with poor areas and poor people. All kinds of poverty counted. That is the direct route to segregated communities and cultures of poor and rich, as seen already many places, except that right now, in 2016, most know that there is "lesser" communities and cultures next to theirs, having experienced them themself. If the fortunate communities would shield themself from the "truth beyond the wall" for a long enough time, kids would grow up only hearing tales of these other cultures, and at last, not even hearing the tales anymore. Rich communities - or modern, as the would be called - would be tight bound around themself, governments would work to shield the truth from their citizens. A future that has been depicted by many a movie, many a tv show, for many a year.

It's horrible future, but a future to come if people dont "want nothing to do with it", it being the very reality that they have diced a 6 on, and somebody lesser fortunate being born beyond the wall has diced a 1 on, only guilty of having another mother and father.

Some say it's a future only distant in the eyes of the rich. I think that is, sadly, very much true.

> That is the direct route to segregated communities and cultures of poor and rich, as seen already many places

We have that in the UK, some of the poorest areas are council estates, lots of people never have to go onto them and have little to no incite into the lives of the people who live there, I grew up 'poor' (by the standards of the UK, not talking living in a shanty town or anything) and it leaves a mark on your thought processes that never entirely goes away.

Things are getting much worse here, 6 years of austerity has removed many of the services that poor/disabled people rely on gone or in a perilous state but there isn't widespread anger about it because it has dis-proportionally hit the least 'powerful' in our society the hardest.

Frankly I think we are headed down (if not already some way down) a very dark path and I wouldn't blame the people who are hit by this in the slightest for rioting/rebelling.

Society should be about making sure that the poorest members have at least a decent standard of living otherwise what is it for.

I would love to be in a position where I could have nothing to do with (western) poor areas and poor people. Why would I want to be in areas with high incidences of domestic violence, crystal meth abuse, alcohol abuse, muggings, sexual assault, dog-baiting, and low education?

I can't change anything. I can't help them. It's not my responsibility. I'm out and I want to put as much distance between myself and that as possible.

You are lying to yourself if you think you can't do anything about it. You can change anything if you try enough. There's only people in your way. Choose the red pill and you'll see.

I don't think that's a natural outcome at all.

I think wealthy "first worlders" tend to be very "aware" of poverty and want to make a difference despite being quite far removed from it.

On the other hand in countries with serious poverty where the middle class live in the same communities as those in desperate poverty there is a lot less focus and sympathy.

That wealthy first worlder sympathy has a tendency to stop at puberty. Everybody loves the idea of helping children in need, but once those children grow up, it'd better be someone else's turn. It's more satisfying to help the next batch of children, or maybe even a puppy.

Being aware of suffering in the world and living with a minimum of class segregation are orthogonal concepts, or maybe even inversely coupled, with the comforts of segregation helping superficial salon socialist ideas.

But the way I understand the root post (grandparent or deeper), the idea of avoiding the segregated bus is not directly about helping, it is just a routine reminder that the people outside the bus are persons. Maybe with their individual flaws and imperfections, but not the fearsome mass of zombies or orcs that they become in the eyes of those who spend too much time in comfortable isolation. Fear is difficult to get rid of once it is there, but it can be trivial to not allow it to start.

Have you ever been to USA? Ever been to Washington DC? You'd think at least the people in the White House would do something about their capital city, but no, not even that. It's littered with poor people everywhere. Even more the rest of the USA. It's a frightening shit show over there. Even more since the election of course, and that is no matter who would have won. Both were horrible candidates. Shit show indeed.

I'm not the answer, but I'm curious. I have never experienced poverty. I can relate that you want nothing to do with it anymore, but there's a hidden connotation that the poor want nothing to do with the non-poor. That that grocery store owner wouldn't want help with picking up the heavy box, because the helper happens to be better off.

Can you explain that emotion to me? Why is walking through a relatively poor district and generally being a decent neighbour "saviour complex" just because the person doing it is richer?

It's a way of teaching helplessness, while inflating your own ego. That grocery store owner wouldn't want help with picking up the heavy box, because he is an able-bodied man. Doing this for him is belittling him, saying he's not an able-bodied man. It's like receiving unrequested advice or assistance on a project.

Having grown up in poverty, been homeless for a summer, walked home past homeless people every day for years, and now a well-paid engineer in a nice city, I understand the questioning rage, wishing there was someone there to ease your burden. But I also recognize that direct charity prevents or delays people from finding a better solution, or even just having the dignity of knowing they've done the best they can for themselves.

In a sea of inequality, there is no peace, only calms between the storms. Making everyone equal is a laudable goal, but a more realistic goal is simply ensuring everyone has a rewarding and fulfilling life, and we still have a long way to go with that one.

There's a whole lot of projection going in your post - you're far too sure of people's guiding motivations based on a throwaway description of a momentary incident, to the point that you're now accusing another poster of weakening people in their community through willingness to lend a hand.

I also recognize that direct charity prevents or delays people from finding a better solution

You may claim that, but don't try to pass your opinion off as some universal truth that you 'recognize' while other people can't.

The solution is to build ways out. Shelters and job programs do help. Direct charity, giving money to beggars, only keeps them begging.

Employ homeless people.

Give a homeless person a break. Maybe just ignore them in their shelter. They must do everything in public, for they rarely have a private space. They can't afford the luxury of choosing which actions others may view.

Learn how communities in your area address the homeless people who live there. Remember that homeless people do still live somewhere. This is not a part of their life they will be proud of, but it's not the end of their life, not a permanent placement.

> direct charity prevents or delays people from finding a better solution

What about something like this instead?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/08...

somewhat related, I live un Budapest which is quite full of homeless people.

There is a program by which they distribute a magazine[0], mainly about the homeless life, and in theory with articles written by them.

It's still a begging of sort, so not as good as a proper job, but I've always felt it was much more dignified than panhandling. And from the other side, it gives you the idea that people handing out the newspaper are at least putting in some effort rather than just sitting on the corner (not saying they'd do, just talking fo perception).

[0] http://www.fedelnelkul.hu/news.php

Seattle has a similar newspaper. The newspaper has licensed vendors, who buy the newspapers at a rate around $1 (I think it's $1.15) and sell for $2. The articles are written and edited by and for the homeless community, and cover all sorts of city business and activities from a unique perspective.

http://www.realchangenews.org/

Portugal has Cais, which was in turn inspired by the British magazine The Big Issue: http://www.bigissue.com/

Yeah, lots of places have newspapers for the homeless to sell. Of course, this doesn't work very well because most people are not very interested in actually read it. I frequently just give people money and tell them to keep the paper, because I've never learned anything useful from reading these papers. I already know what it's like to be poor and they don't provide me with any useful or interesting information beyond that. I'm not sure how useful it is to teach people how to sell something nobody actually wants, other than in some vague hope that they'll spin it into a sales job at a later date.

We have that in the UK it's called 'Big Issue' and I often buy one, it's actually worth a read as it covers the politics of things that affect the poorest members of society.

Same in the SF Bay Area. Called the Street Sheet and it's handed out for a dollar generally though you could of course give more.

Well I would never think of refusing a nice comfortable company bus to walk to work through a shitty neighbourhood. That's just insane to me. I think only someone who hadn't lived that reality would do it for some kind of 'experience'. I could be horribly wrong, but I am curious anyway.

I grew up poor/working class and spent a lot of my youth in the nastier parts of Queens and the Bronx in the mid 90s. And I absolutely would!

One reason is that my background gives me a realistic (as opposed to hysterical) view of the suffering and danger in these areas. I'm not deathly afraid to get mugged, and if it happens to me yet again it's not the end of the world. And I can see past the grimy streets and homelessness to the camaraderie and warmth. I chat with random people on the bus and in the shops, and enjoy a simple friendliness which stands in marked contrast to the chilly self-conscious distance which seems to be the norm in the gentrified areas where I usually find myself.

Also, given my upbringing, I need to spend some time in such areas to maintain some feeling of rootedness. The more time I spend in gentrified areas (and I do enjoy the style and amenities!), the more I feel some drive to be surrounded by simpler, less self-conscious people and things. It feels nourishing. And I know it's probably not rational, but what's the harm?

On Nextdoor this week, I saw that people are raising funds to pay for dental surgery for a woman who was mugged while walking in Mission Terrace, San Francisco. And that’s not an especially bad neighborhood.

https://www.youcaring.com/valeriesgoodguys

Are you implying that I'm being flippant about the trauma and suffering caused by muggings? If so, I can see how my comment could be read that way - I wrote too quickly, this was not my intention.

Shame on you.

I've experienced "first-world poverty", and it sucks. The solution isn't to plug our privileged tech worker ears and pretend "the poors" don't exist. The solution is to get involved with our communities, by helping the old man at the convenience store, helping the wheelchair man up the curb, and talking to the homeless who spend their entire day on the sidewalk getting ignored by everyone caught up in the rat race. Shame on you.

I find this comment extremely distasteful. Who are you to "shame" another person? He's justified to his own opinion and even if his opinion is damaging, he wasn't trying to force it on anyone else. He asked two questions that are fair and thought-provoking.

Starting and ending your comment in the way you did is almost guaranteed to invoke a negative, defensive reaction from the commenter which will only further drive divisiveness (which you presumably espouse).

Also, instead of just stating the solution, try explaining WHY the solution works.

The person you're defending is the one trying to shame, just not directly saying it.

You are using your own interpretation of his comment to make a moral judgement on his character.

Based on what we know, it's possible that he simply believes any poor person can escape poverty through hard work and tenacity. This belief (though arguably incorrect) is supported by his personal experience. And, the idea of someone 'pitying' or feeling 'guilt' for someone in his former position is detestable because it suggests that they think they're better than him.

I want to make it clear that I don't agree with this perspective, and don't believe it's constructive. However, I don't believe we need to be publicly shaming people when we can be having constructive conversation. Instead, I think we should be trying to understand where people are coming from, and discussing ideas openly. A person's character really has no place in a discussion of ideas.

"The solution" to what? The things you mentioned will not solve poverty or homelessness. They will not even make a dent in the problem. Do you think that talking to the homeless guy will warm his heart and brighten his whole day? Not as much as your heart gets warmed; not as much as your day gets brightened. The only problem you are really solving is your own guilt. And tomorrow, and in a year, and in ten years, there are going to be just as many poor and homeless people around, to provide you the same service. And shaming people on HN serves the same purpose.

If you want to help the poor, work harder and give the extra money you make to good charities. That is not going to solve the problem, either, but it will improve things more than anything else you could do in the same amount of time. The direct personal involvement you seek only serves to benefit you, at the expense of greater possible material improvements for them.

If that sounds inhuman, that's because our moral intuition, like so much of our instinct, does not scale. What is good for a single poor man is not necessarily best for poverty as a social problem.

Keep being yourself! :) These times we can use all the help, connection, community building we can get.

Maybe he's just being a good person. Have you stopped to consider those are real people?

>slum tourist

I've never heard this phrase used out of genuine concern for those in poverty. It's just another way of saying "don't make me feel guilty by reminding me that it exists".

The condescending presumption behind the phrase seems to be that those in poverty would actually prefer it if you hid behind your gated community.

Maybe OP is just a polite person who prefers walking for its many benefits. It's hard to be a tourist of any kind when you are on your daily commute.

I think that you should really assess your own inner self. Your thoughts, your feelings and why you react this way to someone helping others out. Do you at all refer to yourself as cynical? You probably do, and it's usually rooted in something in your past. Hoping for something that never came to fruition. We all have to deal with that but some is way more traumatic and permanent (without even realizing it is at the time) than one might think. This is a good video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrQCzZsgIw

I disagree that the original commenter is a likely cynic.

I think the most likely belief set here is that it's possible for any poor person to escape poverty through hard work and tenacity. This belief (though arguably incorrect) is supported by his personal experience. Furthermore, because he's proud of his struggle and achievement, the idea of someone 'pitying' or feeling 'guilt' for someone in his former position is detestable because it suggests that they think they're better than him.

In this light, he is not a cynic. Rather, in a sense, he is an extreme optimist and someone who is very proud of where he came from.

This is ALL speculation. My main point is that we should remain open minded in discussion and not make moral judgements on others when they are unsubstantiated (e.g. you "should really" assess your own inner self) i.e. i really think something is fundamentally wrong with you.

I don't think the original commenter is trying to save or solve anything. There are people there in his community that need help daily and he's giving and helping what/where he can.

What should this person do instead?