> And lastly, something that is probably the most uncomfortable fact about all this; it doesn’t feel as good to donate money. As much as we like to pretend that charitable giving is a selfless act, a lot of it is driven by the human need to feel special and magnanimous.
> As donations go, it’s much more satisfying to donate a minivan filled with Ragu than to send a $100 e-transfer.
> Charities know this, and it’s another reason why they are so hesitant to pooh-pooh canned food drives, despite the extra logistical cost. Non-profits know that people get a buzz from loudly dropping $6 worth of cans into an office hamper, and they’re happy to channel that urge towards something good.
I personally donate cash to GiveDirectly. Money is always best.
To do that he would either have to prove that money donations would increase in lieu of canned goods and/or that the administrative costs are higher than the value of the canned goods (which maybe true for very specialized and/or very corrupt charities, but not for your local volunteer run pantry)
If the charity is a responsible one then you're wasting more money by forcing them to sort your cans, clothing and miscellaneous junk than the slim chance that someone's going to misuse those funds
Even if they don't reach that lofty level it's hard to beat a 5x multiplier between the money paid for a donated can and the amount a purchaser could get with that money.
You might even be able to volunteer for them yourself for a few weekends and gain trust in them before setting up a scheduled cash donation, if you really want to verify it.
Partially, I am also saying that the food we donate is what makes it special. Part of it is donating a mass of Ragu sauce, as the author says, but part of it is that the person who donates all that Ragu sauce probably really likes ragu sauce and wants to share that joy with others.
And in reference to winter food drives, the holiday season is all about sharing joy. Be it sharing one's favorite dishes at thanksgiving, or giving the perfect gift. American society values putting thought and effort into ones gifts, and canned food allows people to do that.
For some people it likely is about feeling good over sheer quantity (and local news reports do show off the mounds of donated cans!) but I do think another part of it is wanting to do something more personal.
My 2ç:
I noticed that there is a strong tradition there to favour charity over social welfare and one of the recurring argument is about how the receiver should feel grateful toward the giver because it somehow attaches a moral debt to the help which the receiver wouldn't feel the burden if the government was the proxy (through taxes) for helping those in need.
I am a European and my first thoughts are always "What a nasty way to help others, adding moral debt to being helped, to put conditions on what should be an act of voluntary uninterested generosity (as opposed to an obligatory act through an inhumane government). That must have something to do with the protestantism cultural background in the US but I can't put my finger on it.".
Likewise, in Europe, I also hear a lot of "I don't give money to beggars but if they want to eat then I can buy something". I disagree because to me it's part of a larger dehumanization process: who are we to tell people what they should spend their money on ? If the guy wants to drink it or buy a night in a cheap hotel or buy a blanket or food or whatever... it's still up to him. I don't have the `right` to control what his priorities should be.
Personally I don't give money to beggars. I did some volunteering and I regularly donate money to some very specific charities I support because:
1. they are going to do a much better job than I and
2. in the city, once you get tagged as a coin giver then words get around pretty fast. It got so bad at one point that I couldn't walk some streets without having two people coming up to me and
3. my government (which has some decent support for homelessness) don't support those specific charities with its welfare system so...
Edit: format and light rewording.
I believe this has to do with everyone's specific set of values. I am not saying Americans are bad people and manipulative moralistic individuals (and I just found some arguments that support the idea that the american charity style helps poor people better than the euro style).
The reason for this one is that in the US some of the "beggars" aren't really struggling at all. When offered food or whatever else they claim on their placard they're lacking, they will decline. Where I live we have a beggar woman standing on the corner with a placard. Behind that placard, though, she's watching YouTube on her iPhone XS. She's been doing this for at least 5 years now, swapping phones more often than I do. Nearly all of those guys who "ran out of cash to get home" will decline an offer to pay their fare, too.
Iphone of unknown origins ? Free WiFi around ? That could explain it.
Honestly, 90% of homeless people have psychological problems so I take the iphone lady over the grumpy drunkard any day :). Everyone has a different coping mechanism :/.
Now, "some beggars" is likely not "the majority".
Anyway, there are many different ways to help others (giving money to the lady so she can keep being by herself without annoying anyone, giving the social workers or ngo that will try to get to her through other means, etc.). I believe what is important is that we try do something from time to time and we don't forget these are humane beings.
My high-end Samsung phone to watch things on comes to $0.91/day. That's because I bought new. If bought second hand I'd expect to pay closer to $0.50/day.
So for $1.74/day, I can watch YouTube all day, on one of the most expensive devices, with a screen so high-end you can't see the pixels. It also gives me communication for free with anyone all around the world, real-time access to financial services, unlimited games, and access to various kinds of work.
It would be very difficult to eat or drink on $1.74/day, and it's vastly less than the cost of renting a home.
Does it really make sense to conclude the beggar women standing on the corner isn't struggling, because she can afford to watch YouTube on a nice phone?
This is the paradox of cheap technology next to expensive housing.
People who are struggling tend to get the hand-me-down previous-generation devices for nothing or next to nothing, and you don't really need the $30/mo data plan. Older devices are also quite cheap when bought incrementally as part of a phone plan.
For example, I know someone with an iPhone 6 that cost them nothing, and a USD $12.50/mo plan, with unlimited calls and several gigabytes of data allowance.
I agree with you that not everyone who is struggling is able to allocate $30/mo, or even $12.50/mo, but it's low enough that if it's a very justifiable expense (and I would argue that communication and internet when you have to sit or walk every day on the street is extremely justifiable), that level does not impact someone's food consumption enough to justify a random passerby judging they are secretly faking povery.
Spending $1.00/day or $0.40/day on something you'd consider a luxury item, does not mean that person is faking poverty, at least in the US.
It makes sense to me to refuse to help individuals who seem to be abusing goodwill, but I think this is a poor excuse to refuse helping anyone who asks. I always give the benefit of the doubt to those in need.
If you don't want to give, that's your prerogative, but I don't think this is a good justification for that decision.
- give $10 to the person on the corner who has a 20% chance to waste it on alcohol or drugs, or
- give it to a charity that I know does good work
then the second option seems better to me; and that 20% is part of the (reasonable) justification why.
If someone is living off a welfare check, I do not want them using that money to buy things I consider luxury goods with the money I worked to earn (tax dollars).
This is more a comment to your 'drink it' part, but also applies to people who buy soda/candy bars/junk food on food stamps. When I was working minimum wage I didn't buy that stuff because it was a waste of money that I couldn't afford.
It always pains me to see people convey that attitude. We spend on luxury items because they make us feel good, they give us a little endorphine hit when we buy / use / consume them.
I grew up in a poor family of four, like my first real job out of high school in the mid-90s at $20K was more than my step-father ever brought home. Having that "luxury" chocolate bar, or being able to save enough for a brand-new bicycle or Nintendo... that was a huge deal. Saying that poor people shouldn't have access to "luxuries" is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to spend money to feel good.
I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?
I was having a conversation with a friend of a mine who happens to be a doctor and she works for the red cross some days of the week. I happen to have another friend who works as a social worker in a refugee centre so we traded stories and impressions.
She told me that there were a lot of tensions between people and electricity in the air as time goes by.
Now, every few months workers there organize a party where refugees cook typical dishes to share with everyone. It does a lot for easing the tension and the weeks after those parties are easier on everyone, staff and refugees.
Now those parties have a lot of desserts (easier to bake and to store) which are for all intents and purposes a bit of luxury. I think there could be a bit of alcohol but don't quote me on that.
Would you say that was not money well spent in the end (the red cross is supported through donations and the government adds some at some point) ?
> I would never tell someone what to spend their money on. if I'm going to spend my money to help them out, I'd prefer it not go straight to a pint of liquor. is that unreasonable?
It really does depend upon your values. What if - alcoholism excluded - that money is going to buy a 15ç can of bad beer but it'd be only one beer. What if this is the alcohol in that can of beer that'll help the guy to muster the courage to spend all of his days panhandling so he can get food or pay for his spot under the bridge for the night ?
My point is that I don't believe that because I gave them some money I should have some control on them, or restrict the use of that money to my liking (shelters do that, with contracts and agreement put in place with the objective to lift people out of the street but that's another debate). Either that gift is free or it's not a gift, it's a salary for a behaviour I want the beggar to have. If I give money it becomes their money, if he can't dispose of it then it wasn't given.
I often wonder what would happen if I just said : "OK, I'll give you ten bucks if you help me move some stuff for an hour or help me with the garden". Then, what if he spend that money on booze, girls or WoW pre paid card ? At least he didn't mug anyone.
Anecdote: where I live, people on social welfare can get some small jobs (lawn mowing, paint jobs, that kind of things). They aren't paid in money. People give them some kind of social paper that is the equivalent of money and then they have to go the administration to get that turned into money into their account. Here's the catch: only people on welfare can get these jobs. And they are basically given monopoly money by people buying their services (who first bought these cheques from the government). These papers have validity dates, can't be used on the spot to buy something. Some money get lost this way. Why should people on welfare be paid with fake money ?
It reminds me of this news about beggars getting a qr code or a RFID chip. Mobile payments would go to the shelter they are affiliated with and that would be converted into housing and food.
> is that unreasonable?
To each its own, it just means we have different outlook and a different set of values (and by that I don't mean to imply I am better than you or correct).
edit: and of course, we live in many different cultures that have different subsets of values and people in it so what might be the righteous and the practical way to help beggars/homeless people might be different on a different continent... or over in the next town.
Sorry to probe, but what country do you live in? I'd like to do some further reading
Also a wikipedia entry https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titre-service and a google search https://www.google.com/search?q=explication+titre-services
let me address your point about welfare first. in the US, we really don't like the idea of tax dollars going towards drugs, alcohol, etc., so the federal and most state governments generally don't just give cash to poor people. they either give food stamps (to be redeemed at grocery stores) or even drug test people to make sure they are not misusing the funds. some research (I don't have time to get a citation, sorry) has found that the government spends more money to make sure that people don't buy drugs than they would actually waste on drugs in the first place! I don't love the idea of my tax dollars going to feed an addiction, but it's silly to spend more money to prevent them from doing it. so I say if someone is legally entitled to get some money from the government, just give it to them as cash if it's more efficient. they can decide what to do with it.
to be clear, I don't think alcohol is evil, and I think the parties your friend organizes sound great! consumed in moderation, alcohol can certainly help people form important bonds, and a good meal shared with other people can be worth a lot more than its nutritional value.
all I'm saying is that I don't like to give cash directly to a person whom I suspect is going to spend all of it on their addiction. if someone is holding a sign saying "hungry, need help" and they refuse anything but cash, that's kind of suspicious. if, like you said, I could pay them $10-20 to help with a small task, I would consider the money fairly earned and I would be fine with whatever the person spent it on.
> Its always okay when its not your own money.
Are you trying to build an anti-socialist argument ?
Edit: Wanted to add something. People usually donate or offer help to those who need because they want to see their lives improve or to make them happy. And that makes you feel bad because they dont wish their money or help end up causing harm.
Canned peas are terrible.
Canned mandarin oranges (Google turns up no results for canned tangerines?) are actually an essential ingredient in quite a few recipes, well unless one wants to peel a bunch of tiny orange wedges by hand.
Canned Vienna Sausages likewise have their place, rare as that place may be, and there are actually higher end canned brands that are rather edible.
So, fun fact about sense of taste over time. Kids have a more sensitive pallet, food tastes super strong to them, so it is often more bland or has simpler flavors. This is why kids can't eat lots of bitter or sour things, they taste really bitter or really sour. As we grow older, our sense of taste starts to die out, and so flavors are less intense. This means overpowering flavors become less overpowering, and we can taste more "refined" foods. And we can also tolerate pickles. (See: Tendencies for older adults and red wine[1])
Exact same goes for our sense of color and taste. Again, as we get older, brighter colors, and stronger perfumes become preferred.
Back to food, simple kid foods either taste bland, or have one dominant flavor. In American famously it is mac and cheese. The texture is simple and the flavor is simple.
[1] IMHO most red wines taste horrible, but at a certain age we just can't taste how horrible they are and they become tolerable.
single data point, but I've helped unpack/sort for several different food drives of the years and I would say that its somewhere between 50/50 and 70/30 on previously bought vs existing.
Like, maybe there's some kind of societal rot where our problems are all abstracted away.
- Some government program takes care of that, and payment for that was taken out of your paycheck before it got to you.
- Don't collect items, no need to volunteer, just cut a check and let the pros handle it.
- Don't talk to the homeless man, except to tell him that there's an agency who can fix all of his problems.
- Don't bake a loaf of bread for a family; we can't trust that the bread is safe, and that dollar of ingredients could have purchased two loaves of the cheaper stuff.
All while suburbs and cars physically insulate us from those problems. We don't have to meet or know those people; just drop a few bucks in the plate and don't think about it again.
Just seems like it all has a cumulative effect, turning real problems into abstract ideas. Maybe it's selfish to want to feel like you're doing something directly, but I wonder if there's a difficult-to-measure aspect here of dehumanization on the side of those in need? Is "maximum efficiency" some side effect of extreme capitalism, and not the be-all and end-all of charity?
It isn't just cash vs goods, they also want to feel like they have made a personal contribution. I loved eating canned corn as a kid, same thing for canned string beans (don't judge!).
I, and others like me, want to feel like they are doing that personal act. Be it donating kids clothing that has been out grown, or our favorite type of canned goods.
When I was in college and had very little money to spare, I still donated canned goods because I wanted to help out. If I had been given an envelop and a form to fill out my CC details or drop cash in, I likely would have done nothing. And I suspect many other people are the same way. And honestly, back then as a poor college kid, spur of the moment I could go into my pantry and grab a couple of cans I got on sale last week. It'd be harder to donate money that has to be spent on future needs, which are much less certain than needs that have already been met[1].
Charities, and all human organizations for that matter, have to work within the bounds of human psychology, and humans are rarely creatures of optimal habits.
[1] I wonder how much of canned goods is new purchases versus existing purchases? I personally have gone out and bought canned goods specifically for a food drive. If the majority of donated canned goods are from existing supplies, than the article's entire point is invalid.