But no, we can't, then it'd be a handout. And we, even community-minded people like Eric Dunn, can't stomach the thought of just giving people money. So we make them do pointless make-work, like collecting bottles.
The middle class people you illogically rage against are the ones funding the poor indirectly (and convolutedly) through their waste. Why not cut out the misery and give them the money directly? IMO it's less respectful, more demeaning, to insist a street person dig through trash to collect a bunch of cans before we give them their daily bread.
I have no objection to them doing so at my house in SF. They few I've spoken to about it seemed very nice.
>Stealing all of the bottles out of recycling bins...
Are you sure it's stealing? AFAIK, it's only stealing if the bin is on/at the curb. I believe it's otherwise legal.
>...out of recycling bins is also not accomplishing anything.
The question is: is the system as a whole accomplishing anything? The removal of cans from residential bins is the unintended consequence of a wider rule, which has (according to the article) reduced litter levels in CA considerably. All systems have unintended consequences. What alternative system do you propose that reduces litter and increases recycling rates? What side effects does it have?
Finally (I'm going out on a limb here): I don't think it's our place to judge. What I see when I look out the window is a person who has the determination and energy to push a heavy cart up a hill on a cold night, and yet a person who has -- despite those traits, which society values -- found themselves in an unenviable life position right now. When I see that paradox my reaction is to allow them their wish. Not because I do or don't approve of the system, but because I approve or hard work, and applying yourself, and because the very existence of their paradox assures me that I don't know enough to do anything other than make sure I'm not getting in their way.
Not pointless: less curbside pickup volume per truck means you can run with less residential-serving trucks (less time trundling back and forth to a big recycling distribution center).
It's a kind of ingenious way to decrease spending on municipal recycling collection, levying it on the consumers of the products apt for recycling directly. I actually wish the deposit were a little bit larger. What they do is enormously backbreaking and demoralizing work.
Also, how is it demeaning to pay someone for an honest day's work?
Entrepreneurs aren't offered jobs, they create jobs.
Of course hassling from cops is trouble.
Says who? Isn't Switzerland talking about doing just this, and doesn't Switzerland inarguably have a higher standard of living than the US?
We should continue to employ hobos for less than minimum wage to move bottles out of recycling bins into other recycling bins via stolen shopping carts at 3am.
Also fuck yuppies (and bicycles).
As far as I know, that is perfectly legal throughout the USA. Certainly there is no warrant required for the police to do exactly that.
I've actually got a big problem with the police doing that without any judicial supervision, but if it is OK for them to do it carte blanche, then in a just society it must be OK for anyone else to do it too.
What is a jobs program if not paying people to do useful work?
You have no idea what my opinion on the military-industrial complex is
In terms of legitimacy, recycling bottles is about equivalent to digging holes and filling them in; the money comes from a tax dedicated to the purpose, not from people who want the bottles.
Compare:
- The government pays people $2 / hour to dig holes and then fill them in, using discretionary funds.
- The government pays people $2 / hour to "do whatever you were going to do anyway", using discretionary funds.
- The government pays people $2 / hour to move glass bottles from recycling bins to recycling centers, using dedicated funds.
Are the dedicated funds really a source of legitimacy? Where's it coming from?
This sounds like a job like any other to me.
Edited to add rant: You want to help the poor? Get out of that fucking chair and go help them. No one gives a shit about your self-righteous rants about rich people that reek of naivety. And don't even pretend to preach to me about being poor, I grew up dirt fucking poor. Now down vote that.
I'm sure you're harboring legitimate resentment, but your rant against armchair philanthropists seems equally self-righteous, as though poverty is a badge of honor. I don't say that to be mean or white-knight you, it's just how it comes across. It makes it worse that you challenge people to down vote you.
>> But curbside recycling is sufficient only for those rich enough not to care about the redemption value of cans. As Joe Rice of the Market Street center put it, “Curbside doesn’t put money in grandmothers’ pockets.” And as many beverages are consumed outside the home, recycling centers are still crucial to San Francisco’s stated goal of zero waste by 2020.
I can only imagine how profitable it is in places with a can deposit.
We need to start showing real compassion for each other. Removing one of the few legit ways the poor can generate money is not the right thing to do. They need help. Recycling helps the environment AND the poor! How many things are there in the world like that? Closing them down because the bike-riding, starbucks-sipping, smartphone-talking, organic-eating fancy & polished crowd feel uncomfortable around the poor is selfish IMHO. One day, we won't be able to sweep the unpleasant truths of our society underneath the rug anymore. What then? Oh, actually, I know. They'll make it illegal to be poor, so they'll all be in jail. Thus solving the problem _ONCE AND FOR ALL_.