This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Supporting the homeless
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Queggy
@ Queggy I don't know about putting a gun in the hands of homeless people (speaking from personal experience and as bad as this sounds I don't trust most homeless people
I don't have all the facts but what if they could voluntarily opt in to go to some sort of jail. They are getting some form of shelter and food in that case and none of the money is getting spent on any "luxury" items
But then we the people are paying with our tax money for them to get clothing, food, and shelter. And they do nothing for it. Sure, we pay for the military as well, but at least they earn it.
And just because they join the military doesn't mean that they have to have a gun or be on the frontline. There's plenty of other jobs in the military that they could do that wouldn't require either.(##RESPBREAK##)136##DELIM##Queggy##DELIM##
Post by
356277
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Main post edited to include GGG's further question.
@ cheezedood & GGG - yes, an ice cream would be an amazing treat for them. But, I suppose the question is, do they deserve it? Is it right?
@ Queggy - I think that a large problem with having the homeless join the military isn't so much physical health but mental health - it's a well acknowledged statistic that the homeless have quite a poor mental health record (either leading to or stemming from their homelessness). That's the main reason I'd question whether it would be appropriate to draft them into military service, unless it were in more practical, less-thinking roles (that sounds really bad, but I hope you understand what I mean!).
Labourer, cook, general gophers, that sort of work.
@ Orranis - why the change of mind? Presumably, if the homeless person can feed himself today and feed himself tomorrow, would you question his ice cream buying if you knew he couldn't feed himself the day after? Or that he could only feed himself on the donations of others anyway?
@ GGG - My family and I have actually stopped off and talked to the homeless guy who camps just across the road from our family's office. Apparently he used to be a business person in Eastern Europe (can't remember what country specifically). Flew to Australia, ran out of money, didn't want to get deported back to his home country, so that's why he doesn't get any welfare perks.
Then, of course, there's the
homeless guy earning about $50,000 a year
, tax free.
Post by
Heckler
Semi-related: Here in Washington, we had a guy invent a form of advertising that he dubbed "
Bumvertising
" (this started as a local story, but I think it got a lot of nationwide coverage). I'll let the wikipedia article and sources do the explaining to any that are interested. I thought the controversy was sorta odd, aside from the poor choice of words used to describe it ('bum' isn't exactly polite), it seemed like a pretty legitimate job opportunity.
Post by
Squishalot
I think part of the controversy is that it's taking advantage of the homeless - paying significantly under minimum wage.
Post by
Heckler
I think part of the controversy is that it's taking advantage of the homeless - paying significantly under minimum wage.
Yeah, I can see that, but I actually saw a few guys in town doing this job -- they just taped a little website sign to the bottom of their sign. I don't know if that qualifies as a minimum wage deserving 'job.' I can see the argument, and I can see that its a sort of exploitation, but no ones forcing them... I just see it as a favor-for-a-favor type deal. I don't pay you minimum wage for your time if I ask you to grab me a beer while you're at the store, you know?
edit:
Alternatively, you could make the argument he was buying advertising space on their property (the sign) for a set fee that both parties agreed to. The choice to hold the sign is voluntary at that point, and wouldn't qualify for a minimum wage.
Post by
Squishalot
I can see the argument, and I can see that its a sort of exploitation, but no ones forcing them...
The same defense can be applied to sweatshop owners - noone is forcing the people to work there in hazardous conditions at crappy pay, but....
Exploitation is exploitation. Though, in this particular case, I would be of the opinion that for little additional work on behalf of the homeless guy, 'bumvertising' isn't that bad. I don't know that I'd ever go out and search for a brand that advertised in such a manner, however.
Post by
Heckler
Yes, that's the big takeaway I got from the whole story. I'm sure even if he
had
paid minimum wage, the story would have left a bad taste in people's mouths, so to speak. I don't even remember what he was advertising, some poker book or something, but if anything I was
less
likely to want to buy it, defeating the purpose of the advertisement entirely.
From the homeless' point of view, seems like a decent deal. From a consumer point of view, seems like a failure of an advertisement campaign.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91604
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Queggy:
I'm all for giving the homeless jobs. But why does everybody automatically turn to making them soldiers? Becoming a part of this huge machine of destruction is not something anyone should be forced into.
Not, on the topic. Giving to the homeless is no different than any other business transaction on the free market. In this case, however, you're not buying a physical good. but a "good feeling," or points with the Big Guy, or a better future, or something else along those lines. IF you don't see a return in your investment, you'll most likely take your "business" elsewhere.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.