> Helping people on the street gives them 100% of the money and won't make rich people richer.
Do you give to people on the street who ask you? Everytime? Or do you decide based on how "convincing" they are when they ask you?
In the latter case, you're giving to the one with the "best marketing", not necessarily the one who needs it more. And in any case, if you only give to people who ask you, you forget those who don't, and may need it more.
Or are you actively finding people in the street and spontaneously donate to them?
> won't make rich people richer.
If your goal is to spend money without making rich people richer, you can also burn dollars. But here they are talking about the most efficient way to help people in need.
Yes. It is wrong.
I'm was homeless in 2025/26 (now living on the project forbpast few months).
Sadly in most countries homeless people have no access to money or adequate food.
For example in my country(too 25 global economy) all i got was one plate of hot soup daily, and 1kg of bread(no extras). But just for 5 days per week.
On the weekends: you need to steal, beg or seek for food in the trash.
Apart from food: mobile phones, top-ups - you need money for it. Without it, you are stuck forever ...
I know people who are saving for MONTHS in order to buy the cheapest used mobile phone.
ps. government assistance is also silly. In my country its equivalent of around 5-10% of minimum wage monthly, depends on the month but ONLY IF YOU LIVE IN THE SHELTER.
If you live on the street - ZERO forms of assistance.(I got one homeless programmer from USA who is forced to sleep in the forest as he can't access shelter legally as foreigner. Zero income, zero guarantees.
He doesn't even drink beer nor smoke.)
etc etc etc etc
I survived only because I faked my persona and hid the fact that I'm ex programmer. I was finally able to land some minimum wage job only then and I'm slowly recovering.
ps. ps. ps. Homelessness is also not about place to sleep but ULTIMATE loneliness: failure or social, partner or family connections in the critical moments...
ps. ps. ps. ps. I swear that 60% of homelessness have ADHD!
To address the worst stereotype directly, too many people can act righteous on a wild weekend out, when if they were homeless, they'd probably be even more out of control than someone who's experiencing being unhoused.
I've learned it's good to support both. Dignity doesn't have a price and it can do more than support services that are too often non-profits going through the motions of generating statistics to keep their funding rolling.
The humanity you see in others is the humanity you see in yourself.
There's 2 meanings of the word. Incorrect, or immoral. I'd assume you'd know on the former, on the latter I cannot imagine a moral framework that says giving to Charity instead of unvetted individuals is "immoral".
I respect your right to have your perspective - reading it for me felt less about morality, and more about dignity and being humane in demonstrating a practice of care towards strangers. It can be surprisingly easy to abstract that away by proxy.
Charities can have economies of scale that let them spend your money more effectively than if you gave people money directly, so it's chill.
Charities can also negate those gains from scale economics by overspending on administrative tasks.
Is that written by an AI, or by a high-schooler? Next up: the trolley problem.
100%
Charity will never use the money as intended, you are just making somebody more richer.
Helping people on the street gives them 100% of the money and won't make rich people richer.
> Helping people on the street gives them 100% of the money and won't make rich people richer.
Do you give to people on the street who ask you? Everytime? Or do you decide based on how "convincing" they are when they ask you?
In the latter case, you're giving to the one with the "best marketing", not necessarily the one who needs it more. And in any case, if you only give to people who ask you, you forget those who don't, and may need it more.
Or are you actively finding people in the street and spontaneously donate to them?
> won't make rich people richer.
If your goal is to spend money without making rich people richer, you can also burn dollars. But here they are talking about the most efficient way to help people in need.
Yes. It is wrong. I'm was homeless in 2025/26 (now living on the project forbpast few months).
Sadly in most countries homeless people have no access to money or adequate food.
For example in my country(too 25 global economy) all i got was one plate of hot soup daily, and 1kg of bread(no extras). But just for 5 days per week.
On the weekends: you need to steal, beg or seek for food in the trash.
Apart from food: mobile phones, top-ups - you need money for it. Without it, you are stuck forever ...
I know people who are saving for MONTHS in order to buy the cheapest used mobile phone.
ps. government assistance is also silly. In my country its equivalent of around 5-10% of minimum wage monthly, depends on the month but ONLY IF YOU LIVE IN THE SHELTER.
If you live on the street - ZERO forms of assistance.(I got one homeless programmer from USA who is forced to sleep in the forest as he can't access shelter legally as foreigner. Zero income, zero guarantees. He doesn't even drink beer nor smoke.)
etc etc etc etc
I survived only because I faked my persona and hid the fact that I'm ex programmer. I was finally able to land some minimum wage job only then and I'm slowly recovering.
ps. ps. ps. Homelessness is also not about place to sleep but ULTIMATE loneliness: failure or social, partner or family connections in the critical moments...
ps. ps. ps. ps. I swear that 60% of homelessness have ADHD!
Thank you for sharing.
I agree.
When giving it's about the heart it's given in.
To address the worst stereotype directly, too many people can act righteous on a wild weekend out, when if they were homeless, they'd probably be even more out of control than someone who's experiencing being unhoused.
I've learned it's good to support both. Dignity doesn't have a price and it can do more than support services that are too often non-profits going through the motions of generating statistics to keep their funding rolling.
The humanity you see in others is the humanity you see in yourself.
Means you prefer bureucracy and abstract causes over real people
Or maybe it means they prefer possibly competent people over clearly not so competent people
yikes. bad take. just because someone is living on the streets doesnt mean they are incompetent
It's your money. Not wrong.
There's 2 meanings of the word. Incorrect, or immoral. I'd assume you'd know on the former, on the latter I cannot imagine a moral framework that says giving to Charity instead of unvetted individuals is "immoral".
I respect your right to have your perspective - reading it for me felt less about morality, and more about dignity and being humane in demonstrating a practice of care towards strangers. It can be surprisingly easy to abstract that away by proxy.