Can Giving Cause More Harm Than Good?

[tskeeter]

Stumbled across an interesting article related to charitable giving.  Also discusses our social welfare programs a bit.

The theme of the article isn't that we should abandon our social conscience.  But, that we might get better results if we used less of a run and gun approach to exercising compassion.

finance.yahoo.com/news/giving-cause-more-harm-good-140003990.html

[Peace Of Mind]

I think most of us here have always said a hand up and not a hand out as a permanent way for those in need.

But reading that article I can't help but think the person writing that was justifying their reason for doing less or nothing.  I don't think kids should starve because they are embarrassed to receive free stuff or lack the social skills to say thank you.  

[Angel!]

I agree that just giving fixes nothing.  But I am at a loss to know what we can truly do to fix the situation.  I feel strongly that education is part of the key, but I just don't know.

[haapai]

It's a very short article, and I'm not sure what to make of the link embedded in it.  I've never been told that Cratchit was well-paid before.  If you consider the embedded link as an integral part of the article, it makes for a confusing mix of pay-em-more-attention and write-em-off. 

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

I think the idea behind the article is a worthy discussion, but the article wasn't helpful in a practical way.  It talked a lot about 'Rehabilitation and Development' as opposed to 'Relief' giving, but didn't offer the reader any practical ideas for putting that kind of giving into practice.  I would like to have seen suggestions on how to give in a manner that does meet the longer-term goals. 

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

More interesting and valuable to me than the original article was the embedded link in it to this article about why the Cratchis were poor: 

www.emarotta.com/why-is-bob-cratchit-so-poor/

[haapai]

Since Vic was on the throne for a long time, I have to wonder how much attention the author of that link paid to dates. 

ETA:  I'm a clerk and my pay is twice what most liberal arts majors got for entry-level work 25 years ago. 

[Pants]

I read an interesting article several months ago about how charitable giving can actually harm people - this was specific to giving to the 3rd world. Lots of clothes get donated to the third world - resale shops donate a lot of stuff they can't sell, things like "Superbowl Champions 2014 - LOSING TEAM" get donated because they are printed early and can't be sold afterwards because the other team won.

Donating like that benefits the first world company through tax writeoffs, etc., but harms existing industry in the third world. There's very little demand for clothes if most people are getting them for free. The local clothing industry pretty much collapses. Interesting stuff.

[Tiny]

Corbett and Fikkert give seminars around the world and ask their attendees to define poverty. Wealthy developed world audiences tend to emphasize a lack of material things when defining poverty: lack of money, food and access to clean water, for example.

The poor talk about material things, but they also emphasize the psychological and social nature of poverty. “When one is poor, she has no say in public, she feels inferior,” shares a woman from Uganda in a World Bank publication called Voices of the Poor. Material gifts may help in the short term, but they are just as likely to accentuate this woman’s feelings of inferiority.

I wish the article would have delved into the psychological and social nature of poverty.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 17:35:35 GMT -5 Pants said:

I read an interesting article several months ago about how charitable giving can actually harm people - this was specific to giving to the 3rd world. Lots of clothes get donated to the third world - resale shops donate a lot of stuff they can't sell, things like "Superbowl Champions 2014 - LOSING TEAM" get donated because they are printed early and can't be sold afterwards because the other team won.

Donating like that benefits the first world company through tax writeoffs, etc., but harms existing industry in the third world. There's very little demand for clothes if most people are getting them for free. The local clothing industry pretty much collapses. Interesting stuff.

There's also a lot of issue with people who respond to a disaster by donating a bunch of useless carp that just wastes charities' time and space while failing to provide what the victims actually need. 

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 17:04:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I agree that just giving fixes nothing.  But I am at a loss to know what we can truly do to fix the situation.  I feel strongly that education is part of the key, but I just don't know.

This was why I found the article pretty useless.  It didn't offer practical alternatives that people who agree with their reasoning points might be able to actually use. 

[Deleted]

I read the article as asking us to actually do more. Not to think we are doing such wonderful things by dropping of a turkey and toys once a year. The last paragraph is a great summary.

This holiday season, consider this Oath for Compassionate Service developed by Robert Lupton of FCS Urban Ministries:
1.I will never do for others what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves.
2.I will limit my one-way giving to emergency situations and seek always to find ways and means for legitimate exchange.
3.I will seek ways to empower the poor through hiring, lending, and investing and use grants sparingly as incentives that reinforce achievements.
4.I will put the interests of the poor above my own (or organizational) self-interest even when it may be costly.
5.I will take time to listen and carefully assess both expressed and unspoken needs so that my actions will ultimately strengthen rather than weaken the hand of those I would serve.
6.Above all, to the best of my ability, I will do no harm.

[tskeeter]

Well, gang.  What I liked about the article is that it causes at least some of us to think about whether there is a better way than we have been following.  If we don't question what we have done for years, even though we may not be happy with the results, our destiny is to continue down the road that has yielded unsatisfactory results.

I thought that some of the rules for giving at the end of the article were quite good.

So what do we do different?  The article suggests providing an opportunity to earn some money, rather than a handout.  Rather than hand a child a box of groceries, hire the child to wash the windows on your house.  Or mow your lawn.  Hire Mom or Dad to work in your business.  Rather than send Habitat for Humanity a check, volunteer to teach their personal finance or how to be a homeowner classes.  If you have a business, hire a kid from a needy family, give them a paycheck, and teach them a skill that they might use for the rest of their lives.    

Back in the early 1950's my Grandfather died at age 46 and left my Grandmother with young children to raise.  My Grandmother didn't have any special skills and she lived in a very small town.  So supporting a family would be a challenge.  Grandma was a good cook, so someone made sure that Grandma was hired as a cook at the local high school.  Grandma also acted as a representative for a greeting card company.  So the entire town bought their Christmas cards, wedding announcements, and the like from Grandma.  When my uncles were old enough, the area farmers made sure that my uncles had summer jobs detassling corn, helping with haying, and the like.  When my uncles graduated from high school, they were guided toward scholarships and jobs that helped pay for college.  Over a period of decades, the investment this little town made in my Grandmother and her family paid off.  Grandma fed the town's children for years.  One uncle earned an MBA.  The other earned a PHD, and became an instructor at a nearby state university.  Teaching the grandchildren of the people who had made sure he had a summer job and the chance to earn a bit of money while in high school.

How different this was from what would happen today.  With the town's resident's being taxed to provide housing, food, clothing, etc. for such a family.  And bitching about those lazy freeloaders all the while.  Certainly the old style approach took more effort.  But, the town raised productive citizens rather than producing future generations of social burdens.  

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 17:53:01 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Well, gang.  What I liked about the article is that it causes at least some of us to think about whether there is a better way than we have been following.  If we don't question what we have done for years, even though we may not be happy with the results, our destiny is to continue down the road that has yielded unsatisfactory results.

I thought that some of the rules for giving at the end of the article were quite good.

So what do we do different?  The article suggests providing an opportunity to earn some money, rather than a handout.  Rather than hand a child a box of groceries, hire the child to wash the windows on your house.  Or mow your lawn.  Hire Mom or Dad to work in your business.  Rather than send Habitat for Humanity a check, volunteer to teach their personal finance or how to be a homeowner classes.  If you have a business, hire a kid from a needy family, give them a paycheck, and teach them a skill that they might use for the rest of their lives.    

It'll be particularly heartwarming to see the dirty child mowing your lawn and washing your windows while your kids are inside on Xmas morning opening up their new iPads and Xboxes...

I find it ironic that our society complains about giving unearned material goods as being something that contributes to unappreciation and entitlement, but then there's an entire holiday built around giving unearned material goods.

[zibazinski]

My kids DESERVE what I buy them. No one else supports them. Maybe uncle sugar Santa Claus gives them a better Christmas than working parents can do for their children but no one "gave" me anything. My kids are productive citizens. 

[zibazinski]

Not everyone defrauds the govt like a couple of former posters do. Way to raise your kids btw.

[Peace Of Mind]

Nov 21, 2013 18:03:19 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Nov 21, 2013 17:53:01 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Well, gang.  What I liked about the article is that it causes at least some of us to think about whether there is a better way than we have been following.  If we don't question what we have done for years, even though we may not be happy with the results, our destiny is to continue down the road that has yielded unsatisfactory results.

I thought that some of the rules for giving at the end of the article were quite good.

So what do we do different?  The article suggests providing an opportunity to earn some money, rather than a handout.  Rather than hand a child a box of groceries, hire the child to wash the windows on your house.  Or mow your lawn.  Hire Mom or Dad to work in your business.  Rather than send Habitat for Humanity a check, volunteer to teach their personal finance or how to be a homeowner classes.  If you have a business, hire a kid from a needy family, give them a paycheck, and teach them a skill that they might use for the rest of their lives.    

It'll be particularly heartwarming to see the dirty child mowing your lawn and washing your windows while your kids are inside on Xmas morning opening up their new iPads and Xboxes...

I find it ironic that our society complains about giving unearned material goods as being something that contributes to unappreciation and entitlement, but then there's an entire holiday built around giving unearned material goods.

I know this is not funny but your wording made me LOL!!   I had a vision of Scrooge before The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future paid a visit. 

Here is the problem with fixing the program as it stands today.  It would cost more and require more government involvement to actually take the time to test, educate/teach and train people who are on the system and the day care while this is taking place.  The costs of just giving hand outs are far less which is why status quo remains.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 18:20:27 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

My kids DESERVE what I buy them. No one else supports them. Maybe uncle sugar Santa Claus gives them a better Christmas than working parents can do for their children but no one "gave" me anything. My kids are productive citizens. 

We do tend to pass judgement on other people but give ourselves a break.  We deserve whatever but others usually don't.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 18:23:57 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Nov 21, 2013 18:03:19 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

It'll be particularly heartwarming to see the dirty child mowing your lawn and washing your windows while your kids are inside on Xmas morning opening up their new iPads and Xboxes...

I find it ironic that our society complains about giving unearned material goods as being something that contributes to unappreciation and entitlement, but then there's an entire holiday built around giving unearned material goods.

I know this is not funny but your wording made me LOL!!   I had a vision of Scrooge before The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future paid a visit. 

I know, I had the same visual!    Please, sir, can I have some more....?

[zibazinski]

My kids did without plenty growing up. They didn't deserve anything just because they are on this planet. It's MY job to provide for them, no one else's. that's the problem, people just expect that someone else, like the taxpayers, is going to pick up their slack. Because the taxpayers do, this perpetuates the problem.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 18:28:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

My kids did without plenty growing up. They didn't deserve anything just because they are on this planet. It's MY job to provide for them, no one else's. that's the problem, people just expect that someone else, like the taxpayers, is going to pick up their slack. Because the taxpayers do, this perpetuates the problem.

Ah, right, I forgot to punish the child for the sins of the father. 

[zibazinski]

Not just the father. Those that take from taxpayers know there's some people with this attitude of not punishing the children because their parents suck at their job. You want to give to families that you feel deserve your largesse, so be it. But stealing from hard working taxpayers to reward those that make poor choices is not the way to do it. Rewarding those that do the right thing should be the goal, not punishing them for doing so while rewarding those that don't. That is how the system is set up. Look at a former poster. Living with a baby daddy, lying to everyone, and sucking off taxpayers. Sickening.

[whoisjohngalt]

Nov 21, 2013 17:04:56 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I agree that just giving fixes nothing.  But I am at a loss to know what we can truly do to fix the situation.  I feel strongly that education is part of the key, but I just don't know.

We have to start with fixing people's mentality. And we can't fix the mentality if we just keep giving bc now people EXPECT to be helped.

[tskeeter]

Nov 21, 2013 18:23:57 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

Nov 21, 2013 18:03:19 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

It'll be particularly heartwarming to see the dirty child mowing your lawn and washing your windows while your kids are inside on Xmas morning opening up their new iPads and Xboxes...

I find it ironic that our society complains about giving unearned material goods as being something that contributes to unappreciation and entitlement, but then there's an entire holiday built around giving unearned material goods.

I know this is not funny but your wording made me LOL!!   I had a vision of Scrooge before The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future paid a visit. 

Here is the problem with fixing the program as it stands today.  It would cost more and require more government involvement to actually take the time to test, educate/teach and train people who are on the system and the day care while this is taking place.  The costs of just giving hand outs are far less which is why status quo remains.

POM, when you look at the cost of supporting a single generation, you are right.  But, if you take the long view, and believe that a different approach can break the chain of multi-generational reliance on social service programs, the investment you make today will pay benefits in the future.

Now, I'm not so naive that I think you can flip a switch and change our world over nght.  But, if we all focus on hand ups rather than hand outs, maybe, over time, we can change the format of our social safety nets.  And turn people who might have become social burdens into productive members of our society. 

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

The problem is balancing immediate needs with long-term needs in an environment of finite resources. We have a lot of immediate need in our world, which gets addressed first, similar to the article talking about the 'relief' stage. That sucks up the money and energy for the long-term needs, the 'rehab and development' stages. Perhaps if private citizens focused more on the latter, letting the state safety net focus on the former, it might work better.

But immediate needs always get more attention and more limelight. It's like how people flood the Red Cross with money when there's a natural disaster, but aren't still giving money to charities months or years later to help with the redevelopment.

[Peace Of Mind]

Nov 21, 2013 18:45:09 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Nov 21, 2013 18:23:57 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

I know this is not funny but your wording made me LOL!!   I had a vision of Scrooge before The Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future paid a visit. 

Here is the problem with fixing the program as it stands today.  It would cost more and require more government involvement to actually take the time to test, educate/teach and train people who are on the system and the day care while this is taking place.  The costs of just giving hand outs are far less which is why status quo remains.

POM, when you look at the cost of supporting a single generation, you are right.  But, if you take the long view, and believe that a different approach can break the chain of multi-generational reliance on social service programs, the investment you make today will pay benefits in the future.

Now, I'm not so naive that I think you can flip a switch and change our world over nght.  But, if we all focus on hand ups rather than hand outs, maybe, over time, we can change the format of our social safety nets.  And turn people who might have become social burdens into productive members of our society. 

Unless people are physically or mentally challenged to a great degree I'm all for stopping generational reliance and social service programs after a few years.  However, I'm sure the costs to change things as they are now far out weigh the current program because of the staff needed for the programs and the education/training needed would be significantly more because it will never end. People will always need the help, education and training. That's not even including the people who will find a way to work the system. The time and money it would take to do all of those things is just too much. Look at the responsible parents that do these things for their own kids/families. They will be the first to tell you how much time, effort and money it takes for their own kids. Just throwing food at them would be so much easier and cheaper than actually doing what is required to create intelligent, responsible people. I just don't see it changing in my life time - if ever. It's just too expensive and takes too much staff who won't be as committed as the parents I just mentioned are. And even many of them are lucky if all their kids turn out pretty successful because their is just no guarantees no matter how hard they work towards that goal in their upbringing.  Many parents are still paying for their educated intelligent kids in their adulthood.  

I just don't think it would ever be cost effective - although I do agree it would be better if there was a money fairy instead of tax payers footing the bill.   

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 19:03:05 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

And even many of them are lucky if all their kids turn out pretty successful because their is just no guarantees no matter how hard they work towards that goal in their upbringing.  Many parents are still paying for their educated intelligent kids in their adulthood.  

That's a good point. There are kids who receive charity/welfare as kids and end up deciding never to live that way again as adults and grow up to be boardroom kings or senators. And then there are kids whose parents raised them to be 'productive' adults who decide to rebel against that thinking and end up as couch-surfing band groupies or street artists. There's no magic bullet for guaranteeing a kid will become a 'productive' adult who benefits society. In fact, there's not even a guaranteed way to quantify it.

[tskeeter]

Nov 21, 2013 19:10:37 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

Nov 21, 2013 19:03:05 GMT -5 Peace Of Mind said:

And even many of them are lucky if all their kids turn out pretty successful because their is just no guarantees no matter how hard they work towards that goal in their upbringing.  Many parents are still paying for their educated intelligent kids in their adulthood.  

That's a good point. There are kids who receive charity/welfare as kids and end up deciding never to live that way again as adults and grow up to be boardroom kings or senators. And then there are kids whose parents raised them to be 'productive' adults who decide to rebel against that thinking and end up as couch-surfing band groupies or street artists. There's no magic bullet for guaranteeing a kid will become a 'productive' adult who benefits society. In fact, there's not even a guaranteed way to quantify it.

Agree, no gaurantees.  But, the fewer handouts available, the fewer hands that will be out.

[cronewitch]

Giving can cause starvation and death. If we gave a poor country enough food to last 20 years of all you can eat they would have more children so when the aid stopped they would have more people to starve to death. They would also have forgotten how to farm and eat things that weren't western.

Newborn babies in poor countries have always breast fed but formula companies want them bottle fed so donated formula or convinced parents it was the modern thing to do. When the mothers dried up and they hit hard times they couldn't afford formula and couldn't breast feed.

[Rocky Mtn Saver]

Nov 21, 2013 19:18:45 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Nov 21, 2013 19:10:37 GMT -5 Rocky Mtn Saver said:

That's a good point. There are kids who receive charity/welfare as kids and end up deciding never to live that way again as adults and grow up to be boardroom kings or senators. And then there are kids whose parents raised them to be 'productive' adults who decide to rebel against that thinking and end up as couch-surfing band groupies or street artists. There's no magic bullet for guaranteeing a kid will become a 'productive' adult who benefits society. In fact, there's not even a guaranteed way to quantify it.

Agree, no gaurantees.  But, the fewer handouts available, the fewer hands that will be out.

Or the bigger and bloodier the food riot will be...