Hands off the homeless
In response to the extreme cold this season, CNN put out an article detailing what can be done to help the homeless. Their first bit of advice comes as a bit of a surprise to me: "... those who work with the homeless every day agree you generally should leave social services to the professionals."
I must say that this is perhaps the worst way to begin an article about helping the homeless, mainly because it caters completely to our own tendencies to ignore easy solutions. I work in Washington DC, and I never stop and give money to the homeless people outside work. Why? Because I'm like 95% of the rest of the passers-by--maybe a bit lazy, not wanting to shuffle through my pockets to find change, but most of all not confident that it'll do any good. I mean, the same homeless guys have been out there for years, I hear, and I don't think it's because they haven't collected enough spare change. Any income received by the homeless person will make a homeless existence a bit more bearable, so long as it is below a certain threshold (or else he'd get a studio apartment or something). Economists know that, on the margin, in a choice between not working (defined to be begging) and working (defined to be some non-begging productive activity), not working becomes slightly more preferable as the returns to not working increase. Since (by assumption) a homeless guy isn't working anyway, his preferences towards working are already established. Since the marginal effect of a monetary handout makes not working more appealing, the net effect of "giving alms to the poor" strictly discourages seeking a job. So giving money to homeless people may not be the best idea if our goal is to get homeless people off the streets.
My guess is that this was what CNN was thinking when they wrote the article. They're simply re-iterating the common analysis that giving a monetary handout allows a homeless dude to buy stuff that isn't in his best interest--stuff like booze, sex, or whatever. But, they argue, giving a blanket or a sandwich does a man a lot of good. And I agree. But this doesn't somehow excuse us from our duty towards that guy on the street. First of all, speaking from my own perspective, I'm guilty of not doing enough to help the people I pass each day. I could have asked to see if they needed this or that, but I didn't, even though I probably had the means to get a double cheeseburger at McDonald's or whatever. The reason I don't do it isn't because I don't have enough time, or because I don't have enough money-- although I'd like you to believe these things so that I don't look bad.
I'd tie this into the permanent income hypothesis. A homeless guy on the streets knows that, each day, the amount of money he collects from begging is subject to chance. Maybe he'll collect $15 in a day, or maybe he'll collect $30. Whatever the variation, he'll probably know that it's rare not to collect under, say, $8 in a day if he gives minimum effort. This upper minimum is his "permanent" income, income he knows that he can spend in a given time and that he is going to get the next period. Assuming homeless people don't use banks and that they don't carry around large amounts of cash (say, they never carry more than $50), they spend the rest of the "transitory" income on one-time goodies or whatever. Or they invest it. Or something else--I have no basis for guessing.
My point is that helping the homeless isn't a glory game--they'll probably get pissed off at you and tell you to go away if you poke around in their business--and it could accidentally end up discouraging work efforts. But it is nevertheless important to put a personal touch on "social services"--if everything starts and ends with a bureaucracy, there is nothing but "entitlement"; however, if you make a personal attempt to buy a blanket, and hand it off to a homeless guy without making a big deal over it (better: do it when he's not looking), you could end up saving his life--and far more effectively than any professional could, since you're the one noticing the need first. I hate the idea that people are being discouraged from taking initiatives (most don't take any initiatives that could even be discouraged) beyond calling a hotline. We ought to be the hotline.
If I pass a homeless guy who, for lack of a blanket, will die in the cold, I am an accomplice to his death if I have the means to assist but do not.
I must say that this is perhaps the worst way to begin an article about helping the homeless, mainly because it caters completely to our own tendencies to ignore easy solutions. I work in Washington DC, and I never stop and give money to the homeless people outside work. Why? Because I'm like 95% of the rest of the passers-by--maybe a bit lazy, not wanting to shuffle through my pockets to find change, but most of all not confident that it'll do any good. I mean, the same homeless guys have been out there for years, I hear, and I don't think it's because they haven't collected enough spare change. Any income received by the homeless person will make a homeless existence a bit more bearable, so long as it is below a certain threshold (or else he'd get a studio apartment or something). Economists know that, on the margin, in a choice between not working (defined to be begging) and working (defined to be some non-begging productive activity), not working becomes slightly more preferable as the returns to not working increase. Since (by assumption) a homeless guy isn't working anyway, his preferences towards working are already established. Since the marginal effect of a monetary handout makes not working more appealing, the net effect of "giving alms to the poor" strictly discourages seeking a job. So giving money to homeless people may not be the best idea if our goal is to get homeless people off the streets.
My guess is that this was what CNN was thinking when they wrote the article. They're simply re-iterating the common analysis that giving a monetary handout allows a homeless dude to buy stuff that isn't in his best interest--stuff like booze, sex, or whatever. But, they argue, giving a blanket or a sandwich does a man a lot of good. And I agree. But this doesn't somehow excuse us from our duty towards that guy on the street. First of all, speaking from my own perspective, I'm guilty of not doing enough to help the people I pass each day. I could have asked to see if they needed this or that, but I didn't, even though I probably had the means to get a double cheeseburger at McDonald's or whatever. The reason I don't do it isn't because I don't have enough time, or because I don't have enough money-- although I'd like you to believe these things so that I don't look bad.
I'd tie this into the permanent income hypothesis. A homeless guy on the streets knows that, each day, the amount of money he collects from begging is subject to chance. Maybe he'll collect $15 in a day, or maybe he'll collect $30. Whatever the variation, he'll probably know that it's rare not to collect under, say, $8 in a day if he gives minimum effort. This upper minimum is his "permanent" income, income he knows that he can spend in a given time and that he is going to get the next period. Assuming homeless people don't use banks and that they don't carry around large amounts of cash (say, they never carry more than $50), they spend the rest of the "transitory" income on one-time goodies or whatever. Or they invest it. Or something else--I have no basis for guessing.
My point is that helping the homeless isn't a glory game--they'll probably get pissed off at you and tell you to go away if you poke around in their business--and it could accidentally end up discouraging work efforts. But it is nevertheless important to put a personal touch on "social services"--if everything starts and ends with a bureaucracy, there is nothing but "entitlement"; however, if you make a personal attempt to buy a blanket, and hand it off to a homeless guy without making a big deal over it (better: do it when he's not looking), you could end up saving his life--and far more effectively than any professional could, since you're the one noticing the need first. I hate the idea that people are being discouraged from taking initiatives (most don't take any initiatives that could even be discouraged) beyond calling a hotline. We ought to be the hotline.
If I pass a homeless guy who, for lack of a blanket, will die in the cold, I am an accomplice to his death if I have the means to assist but do not.
posted by Thăng-Long at 6:55 AM
<< Home