| Tuesday, September 02, 2008 |
 |
Panhandling 2.0
By Paul Hsieh @ 2:58 PM   
Steven Malanga has written an interesting article in the Summer 2008 issue of City Journal on the rise of sophisticated panhandling techniques in major cities. Here are a few excerpts:A big part of the cities' woes is the professionalization of panhandling. The old type of panhandler -- a mentally impaired or disabled homeless person trying to scrape together a few bucks for a meal -- is giving way to the full-time spanger who supports himself through a combination of begging, working at odd jobs, and other sources, like government assistance from disability payments...
People's generosity encourages the begging. About four out of ten Denver residents gave to panhandlers, city officials determined several years ago, anteing up an estimated $4.6 million a year. Anecdotal surveys by journalists and police, and even testimony by panhandlers themselves, suggest that begging can yield anywhere from $20 to $100 a day -- though police in Coos Bay, Oregon, found that local panhandlers were taking in as much as $300 a day in a Wal-Mart parking lot. "A panhandler could make thirty to forty thousand dollars a year, tax-free money," [NYC resident Steve] Baker says...
...The rise of online panhandling advice helps explain why panhandlers and "sign flyers" -- beggars who use signs to solicit donations -- exhibit remarkably similar methods around the country. Currently, the direct, humorous approach is in vogue. That’s why in many cities today you'll hear some version of: "I won't lie to you, I need a drink." Panhandlers also report that asking for specific amounts of money lends credibility to pitches. "I need 43 more cents to get a cup of coffee," a panhandler will declare; some people will give exactly that much, while others will simply hand over a buck.
If it seems unlikely that a homeless person would surf the Web for advice on how to panhandle, that's exactly the point: many aren't homeless and are lying about their circumstances. Of course, panhandling thrives only because productive people believe they are doing something morally good when they give money to someone on the basis of their need, even if the recipient has no redeeming qualities. This is just one of the consequences of an ethics based on altruism. Hence, it is no surprise that it rewards the lack of virtues necessary to lead a productive life (such as productiveness and honesty).
A contrasting (and far superior) egoistic approach to charity is the one expressed by Ayn Rand in her 1964 Playboy interview:My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. Diana and I gladly donate to charities in a fashion when it is consistent with our values and priorities -- i.e., when the recipient is worthy and we can afford it. Using these two simple criteria makes it incredibly easy to decide how and when to give charity to other people and organizations.
If more Americans adopted Rand's egoistic approach to charity, then they would find that they were supporting their actual values -- and also getting more for their money.Labels: Culture
|
| |
 E-mail Paul Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [13] (New Page)
|
|
|
|
| Comments on "Panhandling 2.0" |
|
 | Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 14:49:40 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Andrew Baker
E-mail: smoke_owner(at)mac.com
I can't remember ever giving money to a panhandler. When approached for money or even just some time wasting survey I just say a clear definite, "No." Although I have paid a poor person who assisted me in finding parking spaces in city in which I was unfamiliar because I thought it a just reward for a useful service.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 16:32:06 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: GregM
E-mail: gregsmullen(at)hotmail.com
My ex-boss had to panhandle for some stupid school project. He made $17 an hour plus food and water.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 16:36:32 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
I've noticed that the panhandlers in my city are of very poor quality. I even had one man, upon coincidentally seeing me again after I had denied him money fifteen minutes beforehand, demanded that I tell him what time it was. I suppose just to get something out of me. To let me know which morality was boss.
The only time (in my adult life) I have ever given money to a panhandler was in New York City. This panhandler was technically an entertainer. His sob story was so elaborate, so well rehearsed, so colorful and well presented - that I thought he deserved something for his performance.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 16:56:38 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Interesting post. I have noticed the rising "professionalism" of panhandling over the years (I put that in quotes because I can't really call it a profession). An example is a popular scam in New York that involves bums who set up tables with a plastic jug labeled "United Homeless Organization" or some other official-sounding name. They can even show you sham ID cards showing their official status as professional solicitors for UHO. Unfortunately, I have read that every dollar from these jugs goes right into their pockets, minus the rental fee for use of the UHO name and jug they have to pay to some head scammer. I presume his title is "Scammer in Chief."
Of course, if any of these bums are actually homeless, I guess the fact that they pocket the money is an instance where the homeless are really being helped.
Unfortunately, in New York any bum on the street has a legally-enshrined right to housing at public expense. (Yes, it is true. Court decisions dating from the 1980s have confirmed that anyone can demand housing at public expense in New York City.) So, there is no good reason for any of these bums to be homeless, and most of them probably aren't. In fact, if they "work the system" with sufficient vigor, they may even score free apartments and other booty, not just overnight stays in a shelter.
Compare the surly bums who fraudulently demand our money, such as the UHO scammers, from the Bowery bums of ages past. Although those derelicts were usually alcoholics, they typically worked odd jobs to bring in money, enough so that they could sleep in the myriad flophouses that used to line the Bowery.
That was before the minimum wage destroyed most of those low-paying jobs and rent control eradicated most of the cheap rooming houses on the Bowery. So, any "sincere bum" out there, i.e., anyone who is trying to improve himself after having made bad decisions that brought him to the streets, I feel sorry for him. He has been muscled out by the professional panhandlers and the heartless consequences of the squashing of economic liberty via minimum wage, rent control, and sundry other restrictions. All of those policies, of course, were ostensibly put into place to protect that same bum.
Does the welfare and interventionist state, with its consumption of so much of my money and time for the alleged purpose of helping the downtrodden, make me less likely to contribute to charity? You bet it does. Using the example of bums, there are so many scammers out there, subsidized by the welfare state, that I cannot even find a "good one" to help.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 16:57:29 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Ryan Krause
E-mail: rakrause(at)indiana.edu
When I worked in downtown Chicago this summer, there'd always be a good ten or twelve people on my way to or from the train station begging for money. I ignored all of them, except one gentleman who was usually in the same spot every day with two drumsticks and three upside-down buckets. He played the same rhythm over and over, but it was kind of jumpy and fun, and made the walk to the station somewhat musical. I always tried to toss him 50 cents or so. Felt I owed him for the ambiance. :-)
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 22:52:41 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
A city with a large tourist industry (such as DC) further provides further incentive for the bums, as there is a plenty supply of out-of-town rubes willing to assuage their need. I recall one day I was giving my internationally renowned walking to an out-of-town guest and I was astounded (and thus fit the typical tourist profile) at I was downright astounded at the intricate tales woven in order to jive out of our change. And it's just as Diana referenced; "I need $1.95 to ride the metro," ect.
One woman was even in hysterical tears telling me how she needed a buck for something or another. Sensing a scam, I told her she should contact the police, which got her even more upset. And as I walked away, a local came up to me and told me that the crying game was her everyday MO and that they were thankful that I didn't fall for it, as she would likely leave the neighborhood if she realized the gig is up.
The only problem is that with altruism, the gig is never up . . .
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 22:54:12 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
Reading my last post, I see that it is time for me to go to bed as I have lost the ability to write a cogent sentence.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 22:56:04 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
Or tell the difference between Paul and Diana. :-P
|
| Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 14:46:23 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
The Manhattan panhandlers I "love" the most are those who, after you pass them and don't give them a dime, say to you: "God bless you." Of course, this is their attempt generating at a guilty trip. My reply: "I don't believe in God”" and I continue on my merry, guilty-free way.
|
| Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 16:05:18 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Doug A
URL: http://darkwatersblogs.blogspot.com
The problem of panhandling in Gainesville, FL was so pervasive during the summer of 2007 that I suspected that there was central planning amongst all of the panhandlers. Nearly every key intersection on major commercial streets was covered. In addition, the beggars would rotate posts. I would literally see the guy who stood outside the entrance to the Publix parking lot on Monday standing on a major intersection on my way to work on Wednesday.
Anyway, the city unanimously banned all forms of panhandling near the end of July [1] and all of the alleged homeless disappeared overnight. I suppose that they were not really that desperate after all!
[1] http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070724/LOCAL/707240320
|
| Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 23:35:07 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
At the Wilshire/Sepulveda intersection in Los Angeles, the carboard signs they hold up are stored locally, right at the intersection, for everybody to re-use.
For a similar story in Toronto, google "shaky lady toronto" and look for Mike Strobel's story. I emailed him and congratulated him for having the 'nads to do that story.
There are metric tonnes of material out there for documentary filmmakers and the like to expose the altruism racket. But no such films get done, thanks to the pervasiveness of altruism.
|
| Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 20:48:07 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Renee Katz
E-mail: reneekatz(at)gmail.com
URL: http://adventuresinexistence.blogspot.com
http://www.wikihow.com/Panhandle
Hey, according to this site, pandhandling is an honorable profession, so you shouldn't make fun.
|
| Saturday, September 6, 2008 at 14:03:30 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: RT
An investigative journalist in Toronto went "undercover" as a panhandler about 15 years ago, and found they made on average $75/day, and there were heated battles on who "owned" certain prime locations in e.g. subway stations or busy street corners. And the mob was involved in helping 'protect' these spots.
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "Panhandling 2.0" |
|
|
|
