Does Charity Cause More Harm Than Good?

[lr]

It's fun to imagine that charities would work themselves out of existence, but you'd never want them to waste your money by actually doing it. Creating a stable organization requires major investments in infrastructure and personnel, so you'd want them to move to the next mission if they ever did accomplish the original goal. Donors then decide whether the new mission deserves continued support.

For example, the March of Dimes was originally created to eradicate polio. And they did. So now they help kids with birth defects instead. Save the Children was originally started to relax a particular blockade in Germany. Lots of civil rights groups shifted similarly after segregation ended in the US.

[sol]

Are we seriously debating whether or not kindness and compassion are virtues?

What about "save the whales" type environmental charities?  Rainforests, lost puppy dogs, handicapped bald eagles?  Should we stop helping them too, lest they grow dependent on us?

[Shane]

Giving to charity it easy. Finding the appropriate charity for you can be very difficult. Or it can fall into your lap.


I happened to be in Haiti during the big earthquake there. I met a medical student who was on his first day of clinical while helping at a local clinic (I bandaged, stitched, and splinted, better help came later). This medical student stuck by my side, getting me the equipment, local anesthetic, sutures, etc that I needed. We kept in touch, and when his financing fell through for medical school, I started helping out. Today he has finished his residency and will soon start private practice. Without my help Haiti would have 1 less doctor in the country. (He also just had a daughter and I am the godfather, and I was invited and went to his wedding about 18 months ago.) Once when I sent him an extra $500 to help him live above what he needed for tuition, instead he used most of the money to fund elementary school for kids in the neighborhood where he grew up.


Find your own charity or mission. Maybe it's a local cause you support. Maybe it's a person you can mentor and encourage. Maybe it's a student who wants to go to school and doesn't have the money and you know will be diligent in their studies. Maybe it's something big, maybe it's something small. Maybe you find it today, maybe you find it tomorrow. Setting aside money and being open to the charity you find to support doesn't require you to suspend your doubt about the value of the charity you don't support. You can find the right charity over time if you put yourself out there and are open to the needs you encounter. Invest your time and effort in being where you will find those truly needing charity. I don't know where it will be in your experience, but I do know it will come to you eventually. Don't rush it, but also don't get jaded, and don't worry if you support a charity that doesn't work out to be the best. Start small and learn over time. We need critical thinkers who support the charities who are doing the right thing. It is just like capitalism, there should be creative destruction within the charity organizations, with those doing quality work getting the support they need, and those who do not failing to get funded. But that takes effort, funneling your money to those organizations or people who are doing it right. It's not easy, but it's so damn necessary and so damn beneficial.


We support other charities, and I regret some charity spending, but having worked hard to find good places to spend some good money I can honestly say it's a feeling you can't get any other way. Giving fills you up in a way you can't get otherwise, it's not just for them, it's for you. So don't give up, find what works for you, and until then set aside for you and your daughter what you can to help others in need. You may not feel it now, but eventually you will find the right cause and be forever grateful you did.

Wow, this is really inspirational! I've been daydreaming about possibly meeting up with a worthy family(ies) during our travels and somehow helping them to start a small business or send their kids to school or to get some sort of professional training which would help them to have better lives and possibly affect their family for generations to come.

In 1994 my wife and I spent a couple of months in Vietnam. About three weeks of our trip was spent on Phu Quoc, a small island in the Gulf of Thailand. As soon as we arrived on the island we met a Vietnamese man who spoke pretty good English. He called himself Tony. We spent many hours hanging out with Tony, listening to his old Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix cassette tapes, drinking beer and sweet rice wine, paddling around in little fishing boats, strumming guitars and talking story. We also got to know Tony's wife and children during our stay. One day Tony came to us and asked if we would be willing to give him a small amount of money. He said he needed it to pay his rent and if he didn't get the money somehow, he and his family were going to be kicked out of their house. My wife and I talked about it for a little while, and we decided to give the money, actually a little more than Tony had asked for, to Tony's wife. Tony was our friend and we liked him a lot, but we were a little skeptical that he might blow at least some of the money on cigarettes or booze, but we knew for sure his wife would put the money to good use. We had no way of knowing if Tony's story about having to pay rent was true, but it didn't matter. When we handed the money to Tony's wife, we could see that she was truly grateful. To us, it was a small amount of money, but for her it was probably at least a week's wages for hard physical labor.

[Shane]

Are we seriously debating whether or not kindness and compassion are virtues?

What about "save the whales" type environmental charities?  Rainforests, lost puppy dogs, handicapped bald eagles?  Should we stop helping them too, lest they grow dependent on us?

As far as I know, none of the things you mentioned are being debated here. :)

[franklin w. dixon]

It took me a long time before I realized that some people just think that poor people deserve to suffer, full stop. Putting salt on your rice'n'beans? NO SYMPATHY FROM ME. Some kid in a Brazilian slum with a cell phone? WHY DOESN'T THAT FUCKER HAVE A LANDLINE. Time to post ten thousand words about how this makes me the most moral person of all.

[franklin w. dixon]

If only anyone could be as smart, hard working, and deserving of wealth as me, a fat first world white guy with a job in IT. Too bad all seven billion of em are lazy jerks who need to be DRUG TESTED cause theyre getting WELFARE from my TAX DOLLAR. I mean. I assume they are. Probably in there with the foreign aid, which is like, 40% of the federal budget I bet. I'm sick and tired of these takers.

[sol]

franklin w. dixon has long been one of my favorite MMM poster.  Please, franklin, grace us with your presence more often.

[franklin w. dixon]

Why just the other day I saw a WELFARE QUEEN buying LOBSTER with my TAX DOLLAR for her twin sons named [racist joke]. Anyway aren't you guys glad you came to Thanksgiving with me, Uncle Drinky, and my stories that are definitely 100% true? While you're at it, I also have some opinions about Mexicans. Wait hey where are you guys going??

[Shane]

Almost fifteen years ago one of my brothers was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa. Before he left, I don't think any of us questioned that volunteering to help poor people in Africa was a good thing. It seemed completely obvious to us at the time.

When my brother returned from Africa we expected to hear stories of all the great things he and his colleagues had accomplished. Instead, my brother seemed really, profoundly disillusioned with the work he had been doing and international aid in general. Given that my brother was idealistic enough to want to volunteer his time to go to Africa and help poor people, the fact that he came back with a negative opinion of international aid says a lot.

My brother's feelings about the aid that the U.S. government was giving to people in Mauritania through the Peace Corps was not that it was inefficient or that the people didn't deserve help. He claimed that the food aid the U.S. and other governments had been giving to the people in Mauritania for decades was, in fact, detrimental to the very people it was meant to be helping. That was pretty surprising to all of us.

So, even though saving the whales or buying mosquito nets may sound like 100% for sure good charities to donate to, I think it still pays to be skeptical of where your money is going. And I'm not talking about making sure the charity spends a certain percentage of donations on aid or what their overhead is. I'm talking about the fact that it's possible some charities actually do more harm than good. That's why I started this thread, I guess, to air my concerns that some charities may be extremely efficient and highly rated on all the websites that track charities, but the work they're doing may actually be hurting more people than they are helping.

I want to help people and I want to give to charities, but I have these lingering doubts in my head that make me reluctant to do so. Posting this thread was a way for me to get everyone else's ideas on what strategies to use to best figure out who to donate to and who not to donate to. Really, I'd like to be talked out of my skepticism about charities. If I could just believe that charities were all doing great work and just give to them without questioning, it would make things easier.   

[gooki]

Personally I'd like to see a Univesral Basic Income implemented in my country to ensure everyone has sufficient financial support to meet their basic needs without judgement. If this means an increase in taxes, that's ok.

This may in turn free up charities from distributing resources to educating those willing to learn.

On an international level I'm have reservations about charities increasing the cost of living, thus not enabling independence. However I don't let these concerns stop me from giving. I have my own proffered charity and tend to ignore the rest.

For my children (aged five and three), we're just focusing on encouraging giving and enjoying the sensation of sharing your wealth (weather it's toys or chocolate).

[Sailor Sam]

*thoughts and words* 

I respect your brother’s experience, and I understand you’re seeking to provide a net positive to society, but I think you are overthinking here. You seem to want historical data that doesn’t exist yet, pointing you towards a charity was 100% effective and utterly free of corruption. Even if you could peer into the future, I don’t think absolute good exists. My donations to St Jude’s is good for kids with cancer, and really shitty for some legitimately innocent lab animals. I accept that. For others, the animal abuse might put cancer kids into the immoral category.

Just choose a charity you suspect to be mostly good, and go with it. Make some sandwiches for sign holders and accept that some of them will throw the sandwiches away. Or donate to Heifer International and accept that the org might have come corruption. Just, take action. Really, just do it. Get excited, and do it.

[arebelspy]

Are we seriously debating whether or not kindness and compassion are virtues?

What about "save the whales" type environmental charities?  Rainforests, lost puppy dogs, handicapped bald eagles?  Should we stop helping them too, lest they grow dependent on us?

As far as I know, none of the things you mentioned are being debated here. :)

They are though, as they're charities.

As my posts have tried to elucidate--you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Are some charities ineffective or wasteful?  Absolutely.  Do some do more harm than good?  Quite possibly.

Are there many worthwhile causes out there?  Certainly.

Can you choose which ones of them to donate to, and which to avoid?  Of course.

The answer to "Does Charity Cause More Harm Than Good?" is: No.

Some might, sure.  Avoid those.  But there are many examples (like the malaria vaccine I mentioned earlier, or sol's environmental examples) that seem to be quite beneficial.

Another example: I donate to the EFF.  Personal liberty and privacy, especially in regards to technology, are important to me.  It's a non-profit (whether or not that counts as a "charity" depends on definitions, as with everything).  I think they do great amounts of good for my contribution.

Another cause important to me: Women's literacy in third world countries.  I firmly believe educating women lifts societies as a whole (as they become mothers, and teach their children, it has ripple effects).  I certainly think, even if some of the related charities have overhead I may not agree with (in which case I'd find one that I did), they do a net positive, by far.

Find charities for causes that are important to you, or for people you feel particular empathy towards.  And research those and find some that you are comfortable with.

Arguing some charities are bad is silly, because no one is saying EVERY charity is good.  It's a straw man.  But we're saying they're not all bad, thus go with the effective ones (see: Effective Altruism).

[2lazy2retire]

Almost fifteen years ago one of my brothers was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa. Before he left, I don't think any of us questioned that volunteering to help poor people in Africa was a good thing. It seemed completely obvious to us at the time.

When my brother returned from Africa we expected to hear stories of all the great things he and his colleagues had accomplished. Instead, my brother seemed really, profoundly disillusioned with the work he had been doing and international aid in general. Given that my brother was idealistic enough to want to volunteer his time to go to Africa and help poor people, the fact that he came back with a negative opinion of international aid says a lot.

My brother's feelings about the aid that the U.S. government was giving to people in Mauritania through the Peace Corps was not that it was inefficient or that the people didn't deserve help. He claimed that the food aid the U.S. and other governments had been giving to the people in Mauritania for decades was, in fact, detrimental to the very people it was meant to be helping. That was pretty surprising to all of us.

So, even though saving the whales or buying mosquito nets may sound like 100% for sure good charities to donate to, I think it still pays to be skeptical of where your money is going. And I'm not talking about making sure the charity spends a certain percentage of donations on aid or what their overhead is. I'm talking about the fact that it's possible some charities actually do more harm than good. That's why I started this thread, I guess, to air my concerns that some charities may be extremely efficient and highly rated on all the websites that track charities, but the work they're doing may actually be hurting more people than they are helping.

I want to help people and I want to give to charities, but I have these lingering doubts in my head that make me reluctant to do so. Posting this thread was a way for me to get everyone else's ideas on what strategies to use to best figure out who to donate to and who not to donate to. Really, I'd like to be talked out of my skepticism about charities. If I could just believe that charities were all doing great work and just give to them without questioning, it would make things easier.   

This is a problem for a lot of people who donate to charities, like you they are more concerned about the giving experience or how it makes then feel as opposed to helping others.

[justajane]

There are some legitimate criticisms of First World volunteerism. I wish I could locate the article, but I remember reading about a woman who oversaw teenage service trips in Latin America. This is of particular interest to me, because I spent two summers in South and Central America when I was 13 and 15 doing precisely this type of service. Well, she described having to manufacture things for the teens to do. Repainting walls that didn't really need to be re-painted, etc. They would also allow them to "lay brick" only to have the local craftsmen tear it out and redo it properly after they had left. But they didn't want to turn away the help, since the help was well meant and also brought needed funds. But think of how much more impact we would have if we took the money for flights and expenses for these trips and directly funneled that into local people doing the work. It is just horribly inefficient to send a bunch of Americans to a far-flung place for as little as one week. I was there for six and eight weeks, which I think is a little better, but still.

In hindsight, I think the trips were far more beneficial to me than they were to the culture I "helped". It also enabled me to witness Third World poverty firsthand. I think it's hard to create trips for young people that aren't purely tourism, which has its own pitfalls, but also don't create a faux sense that they are making a huge difference, which can falsely inflate the ego of young people. I especially find it distasteful if it is all the interests of creating a well-rounded application for college.

[Louisville]

There are some legitimate criticisms of First World volunteerism. I wish I could locate the article, but I remember reading about a woman who oversaw teenage service trips in Latin America. This is of particular interest to me, because I spent two summers in South and Central America when I was 13 and 15 doing precisely this type of service. Well, she described having to manufacture things for the teens to do. Repainting walls that didn't really need to be re-painted, etc. They would also allow them to "lay brick" only to have the local craftsmen tear it out and redo it properly after they had left. But they didn't want to turn away the help, since the help was well meant and also brought needed funds. But think of how much more impact we would have if we took the money for flights and expenses for these trips and directly funneled that into local people doing the work. It is just horribly inefficient to send a bunch of Americans to a far-flung place for as little as one week. I was there for six and eight weeks, which I think is a little better, but still.

In hindsight, I think the trips were far more beneficial to me than they were to the culture I "helped". It also enabled me to witness Third World poverty firsthand. I think it's hard to create trips for young people that aren't purely tourism, which has its own pitfalls, but also don't create a faux sense that they are making a huge difference, which can falsely inflate the ego of young people. I especially find it distasteful if it is all the interests of creating a well-rounded application for college.

At least there was that. A lot of people, even people who travel extensively, never see this. They stay on a resort.

[franklin w. dixon]

There are some legitimate criticisms of First World volunteerism. I wish I could locate the article, but I remember reading about a woman who oversaw teenage service trips in Latin America. This is of particular interest to me, because I spent two summers in South and Central America when I was 13 and 15 doing precisely this type of service. Well, she described having to manufacture things for the teens to do. Repainting walls that didn't really need to be re-painted, etc. They would also allow them to "lay brick" only to have the local craftsmen tear it out and redo it properly after they had left. But they didn't want to turn away the help, since the help was well meant and also brought needed funds. But think of how much more impact we would have if we took the money for flights and expenses for these trips and directly funneled that into local people doing the work. It is just horribly inefficient to send a bunch of Americans to a far-flung place for as little as one week. I was there for six and eight weeks, which I think is a little better, but still.

In hindsight, I think the trips were far more beneficial to me than they were to the culture I "helped". It also enabled me to witness Third World poverty firsthand. I think it's hard to create trips for young people that aren't purely tourism, which has its own pitfalls, but also don't create a faux sense that they are making a huge difference, which can falsely inflate the ego of young people. I especially find it distasteful if it is all the interests of creating a well-rounded application for college.

I love those "service trips" because it's like, yeah, probably the 1 thing that's in dire shortage in Honduras is people with basic construction skills. So instead of hiring one of those guys, who probably don't exist, we're all guying to buy 700 dollar plane tickets. Makes sense.

[Shane]

ARS, SS, & Others,

You guys are right. Paralysis by analysis is no excuse for doing nothing. There definitely are good charities out there and worthy people who deserve help, and I intend to find some of them and help them to the best of my abilities during the rest of my journey on this planet. If some of the charities or individuals I choose to donate to end up not being 100% perfect, that'll be okay. If we're thoughtful and careful in who we give our time and money to, probably more of them will be worthwhile than not.

[2ndTimer]

Maybe find a different kind of social good that she can contribute to like the public library.  For example, we have donated to an organization that builds bike trails. 

[arebelspy]

ARS, SS, & Others,

You guys are right. Paralysis by analysis is no excuse for doing nothing. There definitely are good charities out there and worthy people who deserve help, and I intend to find some of them and help them to the best of my abilities during the rest of my journey on this planet. If some of the charities or individuals I choose to donate to end up not being 100% perfect, that'll be okay. If we're thoughtful and careful in who we give our time and money to, probably more of them will be worthwhile than not.

Yeah. :)

And, tying it back to the original post, I think this paragraph you just wrote would be a good thing to teach your child.

I plan to do a system similar to that described in the OP (charity, savings, spending) with our child(ren).

Teaching them that some charities are wasteful, but some are good, and to be skeptical but not cynical is a great lesson and teachable moment.

[Kris]

Are we seriously debating whether or not kindness and compassion are virtues?

What about "save the whales" type environmental charities?  Rainforests, lost puppy dogs, handicapped bald eagles?  Should we stop helping them too, lest they grow dependent on us?

I think puppies should have to go through drug testing and agree to enroll in jobs skills and money management classes before we help them.  Puppies are notorious freeloaders.

[HipGnosis]

I see both sides of the charity argument; it's not as efficient and productive as it could be but that doesn't over shadow it's necessity.

But after that, I'm left wondering... if the OP is doing so much hand wringing and analysis paralysis over a charity for his daughter, how is he ever going to pick a college for her?!?!

[Shane]

I see both sides of the charity argument; it's not as efficient and productive as it could be but that doesn't over shadow it's necessity.

But after that, I'm left wondering... if the OP is doing so much hand wringing and analysis paralysis over a charity for his daughter, how is he ever going to pick a college for her?!?!

Coincidentally I just started reading a book by Maya Frost called The New Global Student: Skip the SAT, Save Thousands on Tuition, and Get a Truly International Education.

Since we've still got 10+ years until our daughter goes to college, we should still have plenty of time for the requisite hand-wringing and analysis, hopefully with a minimum of paralysis, though. :)

A while back I heard an NPR podcast that made a good argument for why the major a student chooses is MUCH more important than the school. The people who conducted the study analyzed a bunch of different college majors from liberal arts, psychology and English to chemical engineering, petroleum engineering and applied physics. They followed students who majored in various subjects at various institutions and found a much higher correlation between which major a student chose and her success after graduation, than which college she went to.

The researchers who were interviewed for the piece on NPR argued that American parents were spending an inordinate amount of time and resources pushing their kids to get into what they perceived to be the best universities and not enough time discussing which major would produce the best ROI. They didn't make value judgments on which majors were "better," but some clearly produced what most people would consider to be better outcomes, financial and otherwise.

[The_path_less_taken]

I wish I didn't 'partly' agree with the OP, but deep down, I really do.

There are ways to still feed people or whatever but also to help them to help themselves....I think most charities fail at that. Granted: no one should ever be allowed to starve.

But....somebody somewhere must be able to come up with a way that helps people AND has them have access to learn to help themselves more. I think a soup kitchen that has people donate an hour, or a childcare center that has someone help out one day a week or SOMETHING so it's not just a "here you go, enjoy".

Anyone who has read any of my posts knows I love animals (probably more than people, in fact) but I donate to few and far between charities: mainly local ones where I 'know' they'll be helping that dog hit by a car, or feeding that starving horse, etc.

Mainly because after hurricane Katrina I sent money and one organization sent me crap for 3-4 years after as a marketing campaign: shirts and cards and posters and stationary and calendars...even with reduced postage they still probably sent me more crap than what I sent them. Which is stupid.

I think the examples above, about the Haiti doc and other charities like Heifer are a good start. There are worthwhile charities.

But everyone has to make this decision for themselves. Mine, is that I donate to individuals (single mom with kids, or the wife of the cop who just got shot) or to organizations I can peek in on and know it's going to where I want it to go. Or to a medical research organization for the cure for cancer, etc.

I agree with whomever up thread mentioned the third envelope can be for gifts. And the child could hand out mittens to homeless people or bake cookies for vets in the hospital, or help paint an old widower's house or whatever.



One thing: at the poorer end of the financial spectrum, OP, a credit card IS the only emergency fund many people have. When your brother said he couldn't cut them up, he probably meant not all of them. Because then he'd be well and truly screwed.

[Shane]

I think there is an unspoken assumption in the OP: that a lot of charity goes to people who are responsible for their own mess, and that the recipient needs to be "fixed" so they won't be needy any more. Of course there are some people like that, but the OP seems to believe that they are a large majority.

If you believe that a large majority of people who need help are not responsible for "their own mess," it would be interesting to hear your perspective. I'm not sure how you know what I think, since I don't believe I stated it explicitly. Rather than theorizing about what I may or may not think, why not share your thoughts with the group?

[Shane]

One thing: at the poorer end of the financial spectrum, OP, a credit card IS the only emergency fund many people have. When your brother said he couldn't cut them up, he probably meant not all of them. Because then he'd be well and truly screwed.

I get what you're saying, and you're right. That was his emergency fund. It's just that, to him, I think emergencies also consist of: I'm thirsty and want to stop at Starbucks or I'm hungry and want to drop by my local bar for a beer and a sandwich...

[mm1970]

Instead of giving money, why don't you all volunteer for a charity?  Find something where you actually get to talk to the folks you're helping, and make an effort to get to know people.  A lot of people struggle with loneliness, especially older and/or disabled folks, who make up a large percentage of charity recipients. 

This is something we're seriously considering. Right now, we live in the country. It's a long drive for us just to go into town to do our shopping and run errands. By the time we finish the things we have to do in town, we're ready to go back home. Obviously it wouldn't be impossible for us to go to town to volunteer in a soup kitchen or teach English to immigrants, but we're human and we can only do so many things well. Right now, we're concentrating on getting our home ready to sell. Every day we've been painting, cleaning, decluttering, selling things on CL, cutting grass, weeding flower beds, etc.

In the near future, my family and I are planning on slow traveling around the world for a year or two, and we have been brainstorming ways we might make ourselves of service to people we meet along our journey. One of the sites I've been looking at a lot is Helpx.net. There's a whole variety of stuff posted on there, some of which are just regular jobs, but there are also volunteer opportunities helping out individuals and organizations that are doing what sounds like good work all over the world. We are also open to the chance of meeting people along the way in our travels who may need our help and we can give to them directly of our time and/or money.

The advantage to this is you then know what they do, how they spend their money, etc.

I'm now on the elementary school PTA.  From being a kid, I had no idea what they were really for, and why they keep asking for money.

Now that I'm in the trenches, I realize it - state and local budget cuts mean many things have been eliminated - art, music, computers, PE and science, for example.  Oh, we've gotten some new funding for art for 1st-6th (but not kinder), and we have a part time PE teacher.  There's a different district program covering music in 4th-6th.  And there's a 5 year coverage of the 6th grade outdoor camp.  And the parcel tax on homes expires in 2 years.

But that means over the 5 years that my oldest has been in school, the fundraising is what funds all of these things.  No money?  No computer specialist.  That's kind of difficult when EVERY state mandated test is now on a computer and ALL classrooms have to have computers and iPads.  You expect a 62 year old 4th grade teacher to set up her own computers?

They've eliminated the science curriculum, but now have "merged" it into the regular classroom - meaning they are training the teachers to incorporate it into the classroom. Which is fine for the lower grades, but 4-6th?  Should have a science teacher.

All field trips (including buses) are covered by the PTA.  Teacher stipends for classroom supplies.  New PE equipment.  Repairing and painting the broken benches.  Replacing the musical instruments.  And of course, you never know year to year if you'll have that money for the 6th grade field trip ($250 per student).  Most of the kids in our school are on free lunch.  Many are undocumented, and a few are homeless.

For sure the volunteering has really helped understand it all.

[mm1970]

There are some legitimate criticisms of First World volunteerism. I wish I could locate the article, but I remember reading about a woman who oversaw teenage service trips in Latin America. This is of particular interest to me, because I spent two summers in South and Central America when I was 13 and 15 doing precisely this type of service. Well, she described having to manufacture things for the teens to do. Repainting walls that didn't really need to be re-painted, etc. They would also allow them to "lay brick" only to have the local craftsmen tear it out and redo it properly after they had left. But they didn't want to turn away the help, since the help was well meant and also brought needed funds. But think of how much more impact we would have if we took the money for flights and expenses for these trips and directly funneled that into local people doing the work. It is just horribly inefficient to send a bunch of Americans to a far-flung place for as little as one week. I was there for six and eight weeks, which I think is a little better, but still.

In hindsight, I think the trips were far more beneficial to me than they were to the culture I "helped". It also enabled me to witness Third World poverty firsthand. I think it's hard to create trips for young people that aren't purely tourism, which has its own pitfalls, but also don't create a faux sense that they are making a huge difference, which can falsely inflate the ego of young people. I especially find it distasteful if it is all the interests of creating a well-rounded application for college.

For similar reasons, I struggle with the 3-day breast cancer walks (I've done 3) and Team In Training runs, etc.  It seems like so much of the money goes to put on the events. 

[Shane]

The advantage to this is you then know what they do, how they spend their money, etc.

I'm now on the elementary school PTA.  From being a kid, I had no idea what they were really for, and why they keep asking for money.

Now that I'm in the trenches, I realize it - state and local budget cuts mean many things have been eliminated - art, music, computers, PE and science, for example.  Oh, we've gotten some new funding for art for 1st-6th (but not kinder), and we have a part time PE teacher.  There's a different district program covering music in 4th-6th.  And there's a 5 year coverage of the 6th grade outdoor camp.  And the parcel tax on homes expires in 2 years.

But that means over the 5 years that my oldest has been in school, the fundraising is what funds all of these things.  No money?  No computer specialist.  That's kind of difficult when EVERY state mandated test is now on a computer and ALL classrooms have to have computers and iPads.  You expect a 62 year old 4th grade teacher to set up her own computers?

They've eliminated the science curriculum, but now have "merged" it into the regular classroom - meaning they are training the teachers to incorporate it into the classroom. Which is fine for the lower grades, but 4-6th?  Should have a science teacher.

All field trips (including buses) are covered by the PTA.  Teacher stipends for classroom supplies.  New PE equipment.  Repairing and painting the broken benches.  Replacing the musical instruments.  And of course, you never know year to year if you'll have that money for the 6th grade field trip ($250 per student).  Most of the kids in our school are on free lunch.  Many are undocumented, and a few are homeless.

For sure the volunteering has really helped understand it all.

PTA sounds like a great way to give back to your community, especially since your kids are going to the school and will also benefit from your hard work. My wife and I have volunteered a few times in our daughter's classroom to help the teacher, and it's been fun and hopefully it's useful and an interesting change for the kids.

We're going to continue to look for opportunities to volunteer in schools during our upcoming travels. In the past, my wife and I have just shown up at schools in 3rd World countries we were visiting and volunteered to give the kids an English lesson. It was fun for us, and hopefully the kids got something out of it as well. This time we'll be travelling with our daughter, so it may be even more interesting, because our daughter will be much closer in age to the kids we meet. Hopefully that'll make it even more fun for everyone.

[arebelspy]

If you believe that a large majority of people who need help are not responsible for "their own mess," it would be interesting to hear your perspective.

Everyone is born into a set of circumstances.

This is beyond their control.

Yes, they may eventually rise above it, but how long will/should that take?

Would you expect a child, born into poverty, and starving, and at risk of malaria due to their location to rise above their situation by age 5?  If not, then perhaps they need our help.  I certainly would say they are "not responsible for 'their own mess' ."

That's one simple example.

And by one, I mean millions, or perhaps billions, of examples.

[PhrugalPhan]

I wish I didn't 'partly' agree with the OP, but deep down, I really do.

There are ways to still feed people or whatever but also to help them to help themselves....I think most charities fail at that. Granted: no one should ever be allowed to starve.

But....somebody somewhere must be able to come up with a way that helps people AND has them have access to learn to help themselves more. I think a soup kitchen that has people donate an hour, or a childcare center that has someone help out one day a week or SOMETHING so it's not just a "here you go, enjoy".

I'm not a church goer, but back in the 80's a local church was participating in something called "SHARE".  I don't know what it stood for.  But basically they asked everyone to put in at least 2 hours at a charity during the month and you were eligible for a reduced price food package - maybe the equivalent of 2 weeks of food for one person for $25.  You could even use two hours helping bagging & boxing the food toward the charity work (its what I did).  I did it for 2 months - an interesting concept, but the food, while fresh, wasn't the best assortment for a single guy.  Perhaps something like this is still being done today?

[justajane]

Most people are able to recognize that those half way across the world are not responsible for the dire circumstances in which they find themselves. It's usually when we think about people in our own backyard, so to speak, that our judgmental side comes to the fore in oftentimes nasty ways. In other words, if you're poor in Guatemala it's because of structural/sociopolitical/cultural issues beyond an individual's control. If you're poor in America, it's your own damned fault.

At least that's my experience when you try to have conversations about poverty in this country.

[Shane]

If you believe that a large majority of people who need help are not responsible for "their own mess," it would be interesting to hear your perspective.

Everyone is born into a set of circumstances.

This is beyond their control.

Yes, they may eventually rise above it, but how long will/should that take?

Would you expect a child, born into poverty, and starving, and at risk of malaria due to their location to rise above their situation by age 5?  If not, then perhaps they need our help.  I certainly would say they are "not responsible for 'their own mess' ."

That's one simple example.

And by one, I mean millions, or perhaps billions, of examples.

In the example you gave I absolutely agree with you. A child born into poverty has no choice, and she deserves our help. Full stop.

However, you used my quote out of context. My statement was in response to NoraLenderBee's claim that in my OP I insinuated that "a large majority" of people who need help are "responsible for their own mess."

I never made that statement. It was NoraLenderBee's statement about her assumptions about what I thought, and it was made in the context of my OP, which made no mention of starving children in Africa or Asia or wherever else in the world malaria and mass poverty may be prevalent.

In the OP I gave two examples, which in hindsight may not have been the best examples to use but they were things that readily came to mind while I was typing. I gave an example of food banks and a guy sitting on the sidewalk outside WalMart with a sign begging for money to buy a battery for his car. I'm pretty sure neither of these two examples could be construed by anyone to be referring to 3rd World poverty.

[sol]

I gave an example of food banks and a guy sitting on the sidewalk outside WalMart with a sign begging for money to buy a battery for his car. I'm pretty sure neither of these two examples could be construed by anyone to be referring to 3rd World poverty.

Okay, so you've identified two examples of people asking for charity in which offering charity is perhaps more hurtful than helpful.  I don't think that's any indictment of the vast majority of charitable causes.

[Shane]

I gave an example of food banks and a guy sitting on the sidewalk outside WalMart with a sign begging for money to buy a battery for his car. I'm pretty sure neither of these two examples could be construed by anyone to be referring to 3rd World poverty.

Okay, so you've identified two examples of people asking for charity in which offering charity is perhaps more hurtful than helpful.  I don't think that's any indictment of the vast majority of charitable causes.

I agree.

[Shane]

Personally I'd like to see a Univesral Basic Income implemented in my country to ensure everyone has sufficient financial support to meet their basic needs without judgement. If this means an increase in taxes, that's ok.

A universal basic income is something I only recently heard of here in the MMM Forums, so I don't know very much about it, but it sounds interesting. In theory, it sounds good. Why shouldn't everyone have at least enough money to meet their basic needs? It seems hard to argue with that. I wonder, though, what happens if everyone is given enough to live on and then some people are still broke before the end of the month? What do you say to someone who comes to you and says that he doesn't have enough food to feed his kids? Tough luck? Probably not, right?

Does anyone know if there are any countries that have actually implemented a Universal Basic Income? I think the post I read mentioned Finland. Maybe @Landlord2015 knows something about it?...

It would be interesting to hear if, after implementing a universal basic income, the number of people needing public assistance like SNAP and Welfare goes down? up? stays the same?

[sol]

It would be interesting to hear if, after implementing a universal basic income, the number of people needing public assistance like SNAP and Welfare goes down? up? stays the same?

The basic idea behind the universal basic income is that it REPLACES welfare programs like SNAP and TANF.  Conservative like it because it's much lower overhead to just give every citizen the same check every month, and rich people would get one too, and they get to say they cut welfare.  Liberals like it because it guarantees a payment to everyone who needs it, including people who don't qualify for normal welfare because, for example, they are too mentally ill to fill out the paperwork.

So the answer to your question is that the number of people on normal welfare goes down to zero, because welfare doesn't exist anymore.  Also that the number of people on welfare goes to 100% of everyone, because everyone is now getting a different form of welfare.

[arebelspy]

If you believe that a large majority of people who need help are not responsible for "their own mess," it would be interesting to hear your perspective.

Everyone is born into a set of circumstances.

This is beyond their control.

Yes, they may eventually rise above it, but how long will/should that take?

Would you expect a child, born into poverty, and starving, and at risk of malaria due to their location to rise above their situation by age 5?  If not, then perhaps they need our help.  I certainly would say they are "not responsible for 'their own mess' ."

That's one simple example.

And by one, I mean millions, or perhaps billions, of examples.

In the example you gave I absolutely agree with you. A child born into poverty has no choice, and she deserves our help. Full stop.

However, you used my quote out of context. My statement was in response to NoraLenderBee's claim that in my OP I insinuated that "a large majority" of people who need help are "responsible for their own mess."

I never made that statement. It was NoraLenderBee's statement about her assumptions about what I thought, and it was made in the context of my OP, which made no mention of starving children in Africa or Asia or wherever else in the world malaria and mass poverty may be prevalent.

In the OP I gave two examples, which in hindsight may not have been the best examples to use but they were things that readily came to mind while I was typing. I gave an example of food banks and a guy sitting on the sidewalk outside WalMart with a sign begging for money to buy a battery for his car. I'm pretty sure neither of these two examples could be construed by anyone to be referring to 3rd World poverty.

I'm not sure what your point about who said what is, I got a little lost.

But in essence, and you may agree with this, or not, as I don't know your opinion or Nora's, but my point is that many people are responsible for their own situation.  Many people are not.

I would bet the people that aren't outnumber (as there are potentially billions of them) the ones that are.  Especially given the number of children out there in situations they were born into, beyond their control.

I don't know if the homeless person outside Wal Mart is responsible for their situation, or not.  If you feel compassion for him, and can find a way to help, great.  If not, maybe you'll feel compassion for someone who you do agree is in a horrible situation beyond their control, and help them instead.  There's plenty of them out there.

[gaja]

Are we seriously debating whether or not kindness and compassion are virtues?

What about "save the whales" type environmental charities?  Rainforests, lost puppy dogs, handicapped bald eagles?  Should we stop helping them too, lest they grow dependent on us?

I uttrykt despise "save the whales" charities. those, and the "save the seals" folks are the reason environmentalism has been an uphill battle in the arctic.To quote an Inuit leader; "we don't have swear words in Inuit. The closest we come is "Greenpeace".

 Some whale species need protecting, other species have large populations and can deal with limited hunting, just like the moose and deer populations. The seal populations are so large in some areas that they die in large numbers from infectious deseases. According to one wild life specialist I talked with, we could have larger and healthier seal populations if we increased the hunting quotas.

Now, for those who want to end all hunting and animal slaughter, this article describes very well why sea shepherd's approach is counter productive to their cause, if their cause is to end the whale and seal hunts. http://www.mappingmegan.com/understanding-faroe-islands-grindadrap/

[MMM365]

Thank you Shane for starting this thread for everyone's comments. 

It appears that there are two sides to this conversation 1) does the charity benefit society or help development and 2) is there a personally positive aspect to character to being charitable and teaching it in our children. 

I think in general, the answer to both questions is yes.   Certainly there are some charities that are more efficient than others (in terms of percentages spent on program rather than administration, in terms of causes helped, and in terms of numbers of people helped).  However, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that there are many many nonprofits out there that do good work.  To the OP, I would echo what others have said: find something that you feel like you want to impact and do the research.  Start giving and over time, you'll likely find other groups that may do a more effective job or a more specific job that you are hoping to support. 

Also, I do think there is a personally positive character aspect of learning about giving, charity, and community building.  When teaching a child about money, I personally feel the importance of teaching them about giving away a portion of money, especially if living in a world of plenty.

[Shane]

Shane, I have to admit I was really put off by your initial post, which seemed really harsh/judgmental.  I found myself wondering if you would think so badly of people who make use of food banks if you spent some time with them.  But I appreciate you being willing to listen, learn, and adapt your views.

Sorry that my OP came off as overly harsh/judgmental. It wasn't meant to be.

I have to admit I have a somewhat skeptical view of food banks. Unfortunately, I let that prejudice color my OP which took away from the point, which was that I was looking for input from the community on how best to choose charities that do good by helping in the short term while doing a minimum of long term harm. I definitely don't believe that all charities are doing only bad things, but I do believe that good people can sometimes mistakenly do more harm than good, even without realizing it.

Thank you to the many members of the forum who have given good, constructive suggestions in the thread above.

Here's my food bank story:

A couple years ago my mom started occasionally bringing us loaves of bread when she'd come to visit us once a week. The bread was good, and we enjoyed eating it. At one point, I asked my mom where she was buying the bread, and she said, "Oh, I don't buy it. My friend Holly gives it to me." So, I asked my mom, "If Holly's giving you this bread, why aren't you eating it? Why are you giving it to us?" My mom then told me that her friend had been bringing her several loaves of bread every week, for months, and that it was too much for her to eat it all herself, so she had been giving it away to us and some of her neighbors. So, I pushed a little more to find out what was going on, and my mom told me that her friend got the bread, which was good quality, organic, whole wheat, ~$7.50/loaf bread, from the food bank. Then I felt kind of bad. We had been eating bread that could've gone to people who were hungry and really needed it. My mom told me, "Oh no, Holly says every time she goes in to the food bank the people push her to take more bread, because they've got tons of it that they get donated from the health food store. Holly doesn't even eat bread, but she always takes a few loaves and gives them to me..."

My mom's friend is on disability, I think, and SNAP and Welfare, and Section 8 housing assistance. She definitely doesn't work. She's in her 40's and physically she looks fine. My mom says her friend can't work because she's got mental health issues. That may be true. It just gave me a bad impression of our local food bank. I could picture the director of the food bank doing a power point presentation for her donors where she bragged about how many metric tons of food her organization had distributed to hungry people in the community, conveniently leaving out the fact that they were just sort of randomly pushing food on people who didn't even really want or need it. I mean, how could people working at the food bank really believe that a petite, single woman, living alone could possibly consume several loaves of bread every week? It just made it seem like a sham to me.

Every place is different, but where I live there are no hungry people as far as I can tell. Obesity is the biggest problem we've got here. Seven days a week there are various organizations giving out free soup, etc. Sunday nights the Hare Krishnas make good pizza. Tuesdays there's free beef stew in the park. Wednesdays you can get fried rice in front of the Salvation Army. I know these things because several people have bragged to me about it. I've literally been told, "Why work? Here anybody can qualify for Welfare and food stamps, and there's plenty of places where you can go and get free hot meals..."

On top of all the free food being doled out, anyone who needs it can qualify for SNAP benefits, which if you're careful and don't buy all expensive, processed foods, you should be able to eat fine on the amount they give you every month. I know this because friends who collect these benefits have told me so.

Before anyone judges me and assumes I live in some upper-middle class suburb where I never come into contact with anyone who makes less than $100K/year, that's not true. I know and have known many people who do not work at all and live completely off of public assistance, and I know, personally, many more people who make <$20K/year, so would be considered the "working poor," as someone called them in the thread above.

I don't begrudge anyone good, healthy food to eat, free medical care, a warm, dry place to live, or any of the other necessities of life. But, I've spent the last 25 years of my life working my ass off, and when I look around and see how many other people in our community seem to be living pretty comfortably with not too much effort, it can get a little frustrating sometimes.

Hopefully my rant won't elicit more attacks against me, personally. It's not meant to be harsh or judgmental. It's just how I feel. I want to put those ideas out there for others to consider and maybe add their own thoughts to them.

Anyone who's thinking of posting, if you can't think of anything else to say besides attacking me, personally, then why not just post in another thread. Anyone who has ideas to add to the discussion, I'll be happy to hear what you think.

 

[Hugerat]

...So, I pushed a little more to find out what was going on, and my mom told me that her friend got the bread, which was good quality, organic, whole wheat, ~$7.50/loaf bread, from the food bank. Then I felt kind of bad. We had been eating bread that could've gone to people who were hungry and really needed it. My mom told me, "Oh no, Holly says every time she goes in to the food bank the people push her to take more bread, because they've got tons of it that they get donated from the health food store. Holly doesn't even eat bread, but she always takes a few loaves and gives them to me..."

Honestly Shane, who cares if they're giving out free bread, and if some of that bread maybe lands in the hands of people who don't need it? For all you know that bread would otherwise end up in the trash where nobody would eat it. For every undeserving person who ends up with a loaf of bread there are no doubt many more who do actually need that bread.

You really also need to supply some evidence better than "so and so said such and such about this and that." Your mom's friend, for example, could not have been on "Welfare" because there is no such thing as "Welfare" in America. There are a small number of governmental programs that assist people with basic necessities such as housing, health care, and nutrition. Do you know what the average SNAP benefit per beneficiary is? About $125. This, and a bowl of soup in the park is your disincentive to work? This is what you think breeds dependence on charity or government assistance?

Nobody on this thread has attacked you personally. They've attacked some very ignorant and frankly offensive ideas you've been expressing.

[justajane]

Yeah, I'm just glad the bread doesn't end up in a landfill. Panera is based in my city, and I used to go to dinner at a friend's house who was in seminary. Apparently Panera donated some of the bread to the seminary. Of course these people weren't technically poor -- just students-- and I'm glad they were able to freeze nice quality bread and avail themselves of it.

I talked to a woman the other week who gets bulk concentrated cranberry juice from the local Salvation Army where she volunteers. The reason? Because it is not popular with those who they help, and they usually end up having to toss it after it expires. So she takes it instead of tossing it. Win, win, in my opinion. I guess Ocean Spray or whoever donates it, and they don't tend to turn down any donations.

I'm sure there are problems with food pantries and ways to improve them, but they do good work. Like I said above, you have to accept that some people will abuse these organizations, but I wouldn't exaggerate the number of people who do so in your imagination. That's the only way you can help the people who truly need the food. Our local school district has a backpack program for needy kids, because, yes, in this day and age there are still kids who rely on the school lunch/breakfast to remain fed. It might not even be poverty all the time but an unstable family environment or mental illness that means that someone isn't making food for them in the morning or evening. The backpacks are filled to ensure that the kids get fed on the week-end.

[MMM365]

Interestingly, one of the principles of mustachian thought is personally efficient finances.  This is borne of a want to not waste anything (including money). 
Each of us strives to be as efficient as we can in our spending (spending as little as we can on transportation, etc).

However, when giving to charities, I think it's important to realize the inefficiencies that these organizations can have, and the "inefficiencies" of some of the people they try to help.  I recall an article in the NYT last year about a family on welfare in NYC (two adults and several children).  I recall reading that once when the family received a welfare check, they immediately went out to an ice cream parlour and got everyone big ice creams!  On one hand, this is incredibly inefficient finances.  On the other hand, when a person is living hand to mouth and struggling to worry about a roof over his head, I can see how it is understandable (but not effective) to occasionally blow money on things not financially beneficial. 

To the OP, your stories are irritating, and unfortunately, common.  If you don't feel that you can deal with the inefficiencies of charitable giving and nonprofits, then don't give.  However, the lessons that I've learned of trying to put myself in someone else's shoes have made me a lot less critical of other people's situations and efforts.  I'm not meaning this critically towards you (as I know that I've shared the same thoughts you have in the past), but I think it's impossible to really know a person's motivations and mindset unless you've grown up in it and lived in it. 

[crispy]

One of the local grocery stores donates bread to the employees at the non-profit where I work and we are all encouraged to take it.  I generally hold back because many of the employees make much lower wages and need it more than me. It is much appreciated by everyone especially because many of the employees have a hard time making ends meet and every little bit helps.  The bread would get thrown away so it not only helps people who need it (and some who don't), but is always prevents waste.  That's a win-win situation.

[NoraLenderbee]

My statement was in response to NoraLenderBee's claim that in my OP I insinuated that "a large majority" of people who need help are "responsible for their own mess."

I never made that statement. It was NoraLenderBee's statement about her assumptions about what I thought, and it was made in the context of my OP, which made no mention of starving children in Africa or Asia or wherever else in the world malaria and mass poverty may be prevalent.

No, you never made that statement, and I never said you did. I was commenting on the tone that came through in your original post, whether you intended it or not.

I recall reading that once when the family received a welfare check, they immediately went out to an ice cream parlour and got everyone big ice creams!  On one hand, this is incredibly inefficient finances.  On the other hand, when a person is living hand to mouth and struggling to worry about a roof over his head, I can see how it is understandable (but not effective) to occasionally blow money on things not financially beneficial. 

George Orwell wrote about this 80 years ago in The Road to Wigan Pier. He noted that poor working people spend a significant amount of their food money not on food that offers the most nutrition for the dollar, but food that gives them pleasure, that is some kind of treat.
From chapter 6:

Would it not be better if they spent more
money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they
even, like the writer of the letter to the _New Statesman_, saved on
fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no
ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary
human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw
carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have,
the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire
may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an
unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of
the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to
say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't
want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit
'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let's
have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream!

[BlueHouse]

Ugh, I feel like such a grinch at this time of year.  I have given a lot of time and money to numerous charitable causes for extended periods of time, but lately, not so much.  As others have said or hinted at, if there is ANY indication that the recipients are in ANY WAY responsible for their own situation, then I seem to have zero sympathy lately.  So basically, that means I am currently only donating for medical, animal, and cultural programs.  Poor, disadvantaged, recovering -- I just don't have it in me to give to them right now. 

A family member started collecting food and personal items to donate directly to homeless people in my city and it infuriates me.  The couple and a few of their friends now collect food donations, combs, socks, etc. from their church acquaintances (they are atheist, but go to church (not attend...just drive there) to collect more donations).  Then they get some volunteers to help them pack these donated items into plastic shopping bags, and drive 35 miles to WDC to hand them out in a park.  Because there are no needy people where they live!  (Wrong.  There are shelters and homeless encampments in all the towns out there, but they have very little interest in doing any research to actually understand any of this).  They like to take photos of themselves handing out all of these bags and then they post them on Facebook.  They have no care about who they're giving them to.  One guy got off the bus from work and was handed a bag!  At one point I asked if they were coordinating with any of the shelters or any of the agencies that try to track this type of thing.  The answer is no, but I just come off sounding like a horrible human being.  Personally I think they do more harm than good because it's so unsupervised and so sporadic and it can also interfere with an agency that actually has a plan.  Now I just refuse to discuss it.  And when they talk about it, I have to leave the room. 

I wish it didn't upset me so much.  It's just misguided attempt at helping.  But I also think they don't want to help homeless people in their own town because they don't want to encourage homelessness in their own town. 

[bacchi]

A family member started collecting food and personal items to donate directly to homeless people in my city and it infuriates me.  The couple and a few of their friends now collect food donations, combs, socks, etc. from their church acquaintances (they are atheist, but go to church (not attend...just drive there) to collect more donations).
<snip>

I wish it didn't upset me so much.  It's just misguided attempt at helping.

Why does it upset you so much and how is it misguided? Homeless people need socks, too, especially during the winter (cold as it's been...) Do the socks have to come from an "officially" sanctioned organization or the government? ???

Mainly because after hurricane Katrina I sent money and one organization sent me crap for 3-4 years after as a marketing campaign: shirts and cards and posters and stationary and calendars...even with reduced postage they still probably sent me more crap than what I sent them. Which is stupid.

This irritates me, too, which is why I try to only donate through the city foundation. It's anonymous and 100% pass through.

[Abe]

I don't begrudge anyone good, healthy food to eat, free medical care, a warm, dry place to live, or any of the other necessities of life. But, I've spent the last 25 years of my life working my ass off, and when I look around and see how many other people in our community seem to be living pretty comfortably with not too much effort, it can get a little frustrating sometimes.

I'd say fast-forward and think about you being on a beach in the Bahamas while they are still stuck in the same situation. There's the long game and the short game, you should play the long game.

[The_path_less_taken]

One thing: at the poorer end of the financial spectrum, OP, a credit card IS the only emergency fund many people have. When your brother said he couldn't cut them up, he probably meant not all of them. Because then he'd be well and truly screwed.

I get what you're saying, and you're right. That was his emergency fund. It's just that, to him, I think emergencies also consist of: I'm thirsty and want to stop at Starbucks or I'm hungry and want to drop by my local bar for a beer and a sandwich...

;-0

Shane, I've been running like jackrabbit on crack all day. At some point, if I had that free gift card for Starbucks someone at work gave me for xmas on me, I'd have pulled in the drive thru and bought the crap. Caffeine is as essential as sex.

While I know that on this board "retail therapy" is right up there with sacrificing live infants to voodoo deities, there are times where a $4 buck of shitty coffee isn't the end of the world.

But I get your perspective: you don't want to finance that. And if he's that broke I agree: he can buy a pound of coffee and drip filters and have coffee for two weeks on what one cup at that place would cost him.

[Shane]

My story about the food bank was just meant to explain some of my cynicism about our local organization. I agree that it's better that they were giving the bread away to anyone willing to take it, even if they, then, just passed it on to someone else. I'd rather see that happen than see the bread go to waste. It would be nice, though, if the food bank was up front about the fact that their business model has changed and that now they are just redistributing food to anyone who wants it, just to keep it out of the landfill. I'd support them if they did that.

There was another thread on here recently about dumpster diving. People were talking about how much good food they were able to get from their local grocery stores' dumpsters. It's too bad people have to sneak around at night time to take the food when no one's around. If an organization similar to the food bank were to organize collecting all of the good food that currently gets thrown away by stores every day and pass it on to people who needed/wanted it, I'd support them. I think it's a shame to waste good food.

If the food bank takes in 100 tons of food, and they can only find enough hungry people to take 50 tons of food, then it makes them look bad, right? Their efficiency rating might go down. People might stop donating to them. As I said earlier in the thread, I think the goal of any charitable organization should be to put itself out of business, so, to me, the fact that the food bank can't find enough real hungry people to give their bread to might be a sign that they've eradicated hunger in our neighborhood. Yeah! Now, all we've got to do is start working on the obesity and type II diabetes problem. Maybe less food might help. :)