to answer the op question: sometimes i give folk money, sometimes i dont--sometimes i cant, usually for stupid reasons. the reasons are always situational.
but that seems like it's problematic as an explanation through much of the thread, and once "bigger" explanations started to float about here, the thread became quite problematic in my view. most if not all of the more sanctimonious posts seemed to rely entirely on petit bourgeois "common sense" with the effect of showing once again why petit bourgeois "common sense" aint worth shit.
people like to pretend that what they see is self-contained, that what is means is somehow within what they see and so requires no effort to understand. this is never the case--but it is most obviously not the case when you are dealing with a social phenomenon or problem--panhandling--which may or may not have anything to do with homelessness--is an aspect of a very considerable social problem in the states. anyone who is awake knows this: but rather than think about it, many folk above seem to have taken the lazy way out and decided to simply blame these folk for the situation they are in. had the op sollicited nasty and repellent class prejudices, then most of the responses above that follow the "its their own fault" argument would have been germaine--but as characterizations of anything beyond that, they, like the petit bourgeois "common sense" they lean on, aint worth shit.
so let's say that there is some cross-cover between the categories homelessness and panhandling.
so some numbers on homelessness in the states:
Quote:
Statistics and demographics
Completely accurate and comprehensive statistics are difficult to acquire for any social study, but especially so when measuring the ambiguous, hidden, and erratic reality of homelessness. All figures given are estimates. In addition, these estimates represent overall national averages; the proportions of specific homeless communities can vary substantially depending on local geography.
The mobile and often hidden nature of homelessness makes this group difficult to accurately survey. The last rigorous attempt at estimating annual homeless prevalence in the United States was undertaken by the 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC).[5] Annual homeless prevalence was estimated at between 1.58 million (based on October/November four-week count) to 3.49 million (based on February seven day count).[6] Most, though not all, advocates use the higher estimate of over 3 million, especially since homelessness is thought to have risen since 1996.
Lifetime homeless prevalence measured in 1990 by Bruce Link and colleagues found 7.4% or 13.5 million people reported experiencing literal homelessness.[7] These estimates were tabulated from telephone interviews and thus most likely excluded all currently homeless individuals.
Some estimates from various sources on the characteristics and number of homeless people:
Total Number
As many as 3.5 million people experience homelessness in a given year (1% of the entire U.S. population or 10% of its poor), and about 842,000 people in any given week.[8]
Familial composition[9]
40% are families with children?the fastest growing segment.
41% are single males.
14% are single females.
5% are minors unaccompanied by adults.
1.37 million (or 39%) of the total homeless population are children under the age of 18.[10]
Ethnicity[11]
49% are African American (compared to 11% of general population).
35% are Caucasian (under-represented compared to 75% of general population).
13% are Hispanic (compared to 10% of general population).
2% are Native American (compared to 1% of general population).
1% are Asian-American (under-represented compared to 4% of general population).
Health-concerns[12]
22% are considered to have serious mental illnesses, or are disabled.
30% have substance abuse problems.
3% report having HIV/AIDS.
26% report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted infections.
46% report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.
55% report having no health insurance (compared to 16% of general population).
58% report having trouble getting enough food to eat.
Backgrounds[13]
23% are veterans (compared to 13% of general population).
25% were physically or sexually abused as children.
27% were in foster care or similar institutions as children.
21% were homeless at some point during their childhood.
54% were incarcerated at some point in their lives.
Education[14]
38% have less than a High School diploma.
34% have a High School diploma or equivalent (G.E.D.).
28% have more than a High School education.
Employment[15]
44% report having worked in the past week.
13% have regular jobs.
50% receive less than $300 per month as income.
Location[16]
71% reside in central cities.
21% are in suburbs.
9% are in rural areas.
Duration[17]
80% of those who experience homelessness do so for less than 3 weeks. They typically have more personal, social, or economic resources to draw upon.
10% are homeless for up to two months. They cite lack of available or affordable housing as responsible for the delay.
10% are so called ?chronic? and remain without housing for extended periods of time on a frequent basis. They typically struggle with mental illness, substance abuse, or both.
Somewhat different data seem to be presented in the full demographics reported in the 1996 NSHAPC survey which include:
Family status
61% Single men
15% Single women
12.2% Women with children
4.6% Other women
5.3% Other men
2.3% Men with children
Racial demographics of head of household
41% White, non-Hispanic
40% Black, non-Hispanic
11% Hispanic
8% Native American
1% Other
Length of current homeless period
5% Less than one week
8% Greater than one week, less than one month
15% One to three months
11% Four to six months
15% Seven to twelve months
16% Thirteen to twenty four months
10% Twenty-five to sixty months
20% Five or more years
Lifetime self-reported alcohol, drug and mental health problems
62% Alcohol
58% Drugs
57% Mental health
27% Mental health and alcohol or drug (dual diagnosed)
|
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeles..._United_States
the footnote links are live in the original, so the data can be chased, and there is an extensive bibliography.
poverty understood in absolute terms is poverty not understood at all. you might read this piece by amartya sen for a very compelling argument as to why this is the case:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=001...3E2.0.CO%3B2-7
jstor is an academic database: if you have access to it via a university library, the download is free...the paper version is pretty iwdely available in most bigger libraries. i put up the link for the bibliographic information.
one of the things he argues in this paper is that poverty in the united states is considerably worse than poverty in many "third world" countries not because of the material situations in each--whcih you cannot take in isolation (sorry)--but rather because of the socio-cultural position created around poverty in the states--the claim becomes really clear if you read the piece.