The church where I work has a huge clothes closet. Anyone can come in and get two outfits every 2 months (you have to have a state ID). There’s a lot of crappy clothes but there are some really, really nice ones too. Shoes especially. Nice brand names with only a scuff or two. Great purses, beautiful wool coats and full suits for men. We also give away toiletries and the barber school two doors down does free cuts and shaves on certain days.
I’m not homeless nor do I know anyone who is but I love yard sales. I have all sorts of nice clothing including a few cashmere sweaters and several pairs of designer shoes that I picked up for under five bucks each. Church yard sales in upscale neighborhoods can be a great way to find nice clothing for very little cash. Clothing is not always the marker you might imagine.
I lived like this as well, in about the same time and place as you did, and I think this is why I am so suspicious of these folks standing on the street corners around here. Mostly because the folks I knew in that situation back then were not clean, well dressed, groomed and fed. Particularly those who were homeless for a length of time, such as the ones here who I have seen on the same corners for years. So, either they are not homeless, or there are more shelters and services for them now - and given the financial condition of this state, I’m not sure the latter could be true.
OTOH, what I see mostly is that anything donated for children should be new or nearly new, yet that would seem to rule out anything that someone’s kids outgrew but would still be fully serviceable.
Heh, I pretty much have to shop online. I do buy new, but I wear things until they are pretty much rags - I am cheap. I’m also not that much into clothes and since I no longer work I can get away with wearing a shirt or sweatshirt and jeans pretty much every day. I mostly just buy a couple pair of Lee jeans (the only ones that fit right) about every six months, and a new pair of shoes about that often.
It’s more the condition of the clothes that I notice, since I’m not sure I would recognize the names of designers. The guy who has been panhandling at the post office for at least the past 15 years (who claims to be a crippled vet, yet walks over a mile to his other spot every day) wears very nice looking clothes. Clean, don’t appear to have been worn much, etc. When I worked near there and was going to the PO 3-4 times a week, I sort of kept tabs on what he was wearing when I started to wonder about him, and noticed he had at least a weeks worth of nice clothes.
No, just exactly what I said - I don’t understand why those who panhandled in Seattle looked as if they were having a rough go of life, and those who panhandle here in (my area of ) S Cal look middle class. When I was po’ in the Seattle area, there was really no way that I could have gone for more than maybe a month and still looked as clean and put together as these folks on the street corners here. Maybe there are just more services available to them these days, but it appears more likely that there are simply more people here who are willing to panhandle when they don’t have to, because our weather makes it relatively easy to do so.
I’m going to have to check on our Goodwill stores someday. I donate stuff about every other month, but never essentially new $100 shoes!
Here that is simply not an issue - we all pay for garbage pickup whether we use it or not. There really isn’t any incentive for anyone to go to the bother to bag up a bunch of dirty ripped up clothes and save them for Goodwill when they can just chuck them in the trash. Yet virtually all of the organizations that are asking for donations insist on new or nearly new, and this time of year they want new wrapped presents for children. I’ve got a ton of stuffed toys here, but there is no way I’m going to wrap each one.
Yeah, but there really can’t be that many of those folks left that they can donate enough for everyone! I don’t know anyone who could afford to give Goodwill new or nearly new $100 shoes.
I don’t live near those places so if these folks are really homeless, neither do they.
This example doesn’t address the folks I’m talking about - the ones here who have been on the same corners for years. Plus, they ain’t working other than on those corners.
There is a minimum now for opening a savings account? Mine is attached to my checking account, so I don’t know.
Anything that involves the government works out that way… :smack:
Did you happen to read the extensively researched staff report I linked to in post #58, curlcoat? It suggests that your personal experiences may not be the norm after all.
Did you? Because the article you linked to pretty much ended with the conclusion of “there’s money to be made, but most homeless stop panhandling once they get enough money for booze”. Since this discussion has switched over to discussing panhandlers who AREN’T homeless (and thus not subject to the “don’t carry too much money or you’ll get beaten and robbed” dilemma), the fact that there exists a very real high end to the panhandling spectrum for those willing to dedicate a full day’s work at it cannot be ignored.
What, “out-grew” and “nearly-new” aren’t compatible? Yes, some children destroy their possessions but not all do.
I don’t know any of those people, either, yet there is no denying that there are some high-quality, high-end clothes to be had with nearly no wear at my local thrift stores! The only think I can think of is that they keep a low profile in daily life and enjoy anonymous giving.
Yes, some banks require this. In particular, they’ll require it of people with bad credit, low income, or no income - the very people who can least scratch together a minimum amount!
I can’t help but think that those who vote and demand measures to monitor the poor for fraud in a way no one else is monitored, who demand measures that are, essentially, punitive towards the poor, and who make requirements that work against people getting back on their feet are largely to blame here and not necessarily the social workers forced to adhere to the rules and regulations. The government is us, so if the government is evil/incompetent/whatever the place to look for blame is the mirror.
Yah. I rarely give the homeless money, but will often (especially during very hot or cold weather) offer to call a transport hotline or find a nearby shelter for them. Folks generally decline, saying that they’re worried their possessions will be stolen, or simply that they can’t abide the smell.
You really should. I recently bought two 100% cashmere sweaters at Goodwill. One was an off brand, the other was Ann Taylor. I paid $11. (3.50 for the off brand, $7 for the Ann Taylor). They were each in perfect condition and probably retailed in the neighborhood of $60-$120 each.
I’ve personally donated unworn beautiful quality leather mules that were brought for me from Argentina. I have seen equivalent quality shoes for around $100. I just don’t wear mules.
This is actually more common than you’d think as people change lifestyles. When I got pregnant we hired an organizer to help us clear out some space for the baby and we ended up donating 6 hefty bags worth of clothing, 2 formal dresses and a formal suit, more than 150 books, a couch, etc. Now that the baby has been born they are about to get a huge collection of business appropriate maternity clothing as well. Any time someone moves to a smaller home, loses or gains a lot of weight, has a baby, or any other major change a lot of people will use that as a reason to donate to goodwill.
Did you happen to notice that this whole thread is about my personal experiences and my questions about those? Also, you might want to note that the article doesn’t say what you seem to think it does.
Look, it’s obvious that you ended up with a different attitude towards the homeless and/or panhandlers than I did but that doesn’t mean that either one of us is wrong.
Do parents not do hand-me-downs any more? My experience with children and their clothes is severely out of date, but back then by the time the last sibling was done with something, it was well past “nearly-new”.
Oh, I have no trouble believing that, what I am concerned about is how much in the way of completely usable clothing is not being donated because it doesn’t fit new or nearly-new. Or are my husband and I freaks for wearing clothes until they are in pretty bad shape?
That seems odd - what does the bank gain by this? Money is money, right?
Not really - it is a small minority of “us” who interpret and enforce those rules and regulations. It isn’t just the poor, it’s any group - for example, rules regarding dogs are severely limiting due to the bad actions of a very few and the - cough - “interesting” interpretations of some of those in power. The ability of the disabled to move around in society is heavily regulated due to the actions of a few. Etc. Any time money is involved, particularly tax money, there are going to be rules and regulations and suspicion.
mmm, cashmere… Maybe after the holidays are over I’ll be able to get to one of those stores and have a look. Promise there will be cashmere? 
Lots of people have only one or two children. Two of my sisters have had only one kid each, of the other two who are biological mothers, they each have a boy and a girl: no hand-me-downs there.
And even in larger families, hand-me-downs are not a given. I have two older brothers, and though we were not well-to-do growing up, I can’t recall ever getting their hand-me-downs. I’m not sure why, and as my mother is dead I’ll probably never know.
Banks are in business to make money, not just break even. By requiring a minimum balance on a savings account, they encourage people to keep largish amounts of cash in said accounts for long periods, which means the bank has more capital available for loans and such than they would if savings accounts were allowed to be smaller and thus suffer more churn. In addition, the minimum balance requirement on leads to persons with small balances keeping those in checking accounts, which are more likely to earn money through fees.
I think a lot more people are having only one or two children these days, so there are fewer children to receive hand-me-downs. Also, if there are only two children and they’re different genders not everything may be handed down - I can see a girl’s dress going to Goodwill rather than to her younger brother, for example. There also seem to be more families with widely space children - if there’s a 10 year gap between siblings parents may be more inclined to donate stuff rather than wait 5-10 years to hand it down.
Like you, I tend to wear things until they fall apart so there’s a few of us out here, but not everyone does things that way. I’ve known several people in my lifetime who completely clean out their closets every few months and buy an entirely new wardrobe every season.
As a general rule, social workers are NOT allowed to “interpret” the rules, they are only permitted to enforce them, no matter how stupid, cruel, or counterproductive they may be in an individual situation.
True. However, we don’t require senior citizens to submit to a drug test prior to receiving their monthly social security checks, yet there are proposals to impose the equivalent on the poor. It is one thing to require confirmation and compliance, another thing to criminalize a class of people who have not actually broken any laws.
Ah. Around here it seems like everyone has a herd of kids, but I don’t know about the status of hand-me-downs.
But, does a savings account with a small balance actually cost the bank money? With everything automated these days, I can’t see it costing them more than a couple of pennies a year.
Wow. What a complete waste of money! Those folks must have been rich, right?
No, but there are folks at some point above them in the chain of command who do interpret the laws, and many times no matter how well meaning a law may have started out to be, it ends up causing trouble for the folks it was supposed to help/protect. Then the people on the front lines get stuck having to carry out that interpretation, and dealing with the backlash if any.
Or, TOTB overreact to one problem and create rules to make sure that doesn’t happen again, without knowing how it will affect everything else. Or they don’t care.
Drug tests are required to get and/or keep some jobs, so it isn’t just the poor that would be applied to. However, that is an excellent example what I was talking about above - some people who need those services are addicts, so the people who are not actually working with them think drug tests are a good way to, what?, make them stop taking drugs? Make sure they aren’t using their welfare checks to buy drugs? The few people who make those sorts of decisions are generally those who have little or no experience in whatever area they are make the rules for unfortunately.
Tho, FTR, I don’t see how taking a drug test criminalizes anyone? As long as they don’t make me pay for it, I’ll pee in a cup for anyone - I got lots.
For the seasonal wardrobe changers I’ve known, it seems more they have very different priorities than you and I do.
Although, really, some of the jobs that require them shouldn’t, and some jobs that should require them don’t. What I’m saying is that stocking toilet paper at Wal-Mart shouldn’t require a drug test, as even drunk/high fools can usually do it and don’t endanger others. Being CEO of a company that manages peoples’ retirement accounts SHOULD require a drug/alcohol test because poor or impaired judgement really can hurt others.
The Florida proposal requires those applying for benefits like foodstamps pay for the test. IF they pass as clean then they get reimbursed. As if people poor enough to qualify are going to have $30+ dollars to purchase a test for every member of the household. If one person tests positive no one gets benefits.
There’s also the stupidity that someone convicted of any felony can’t get food stamps at all… because felons don’t need to eat? Keep in mind - that means if you pass a bad check at, say 19 years of age when you’re 30 and more mature/learned your lesson if you need something like foodstamps you’re SOL. Because depriving those convicted in the past will somehow keep them honest…? Or is it they’ll start to steal out of desperation?
Oh, and I’ll note once again that there is no longer anything like a “welfare check” in this country, not since 1996. You can get foodstamps. People with children can get “Temporary Assistance” for families with “needy children”, but it’s nothing like the old welfare, it’s not nearly as much, and only for a total of five years in a lifetime.
Housing assistance? It is to laugh - in my area the waiting list for Section 8 is ten years long. Not only that, but the waiting list is closed, meaning if you aren’t already on it you can’t get on it. Period.
Ah, the old “I have nothing to hide” attitude. Such innocence. Such optimism.
Do a Google search on “drug test false positive” and see what pops up.
Being innocent is probably going to get you out of trouble in the long run, but proving it won’t be easy or pleasant. And in that situation, you are guilty until and unless you can prove yourself innocent.
I thought that was just for drug-related felonies? (Either way I think it’s stupid though.)
Kind of sad when you think about it.
I suppose it depends on how drunk/high they are, but I think the main purpose of drug tests there is whether or not the employee is likely to show up for work regularly.
Oh, well, that’s just stupid. But then, Florida…
What is the reasoning behind that? Continued punishment? Deterring those currently on food stamps from committing a felony?
They never get anything that translates into money? I suppose they could sell their food stamps for pennies on the dollar or something.
Apparently I would need to refrain from eating poppy seeds or taking cold medication.
Still not seeing the “criminalization” here.
Not cash. And there are no “food stamps” as such, anymore. They stopped using the coupons years ago. Now all monetary benefits are on what’s called an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card, which is like a debit card. No recipient can have two EBT cards active at once, so if they sell the card itself, they can report it lost or stolen but the old card will be deactivated when the new card is authorized, so someone’s getting screwed. They can probably buy food and sell that, but they’re losing value on that transaction. And they can’t use SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program…what food stamps are actually called now) for tobacco, alcohol or any non-food product.
I know fuck all about fashion or clothing lines, but a quick search online shows that a cheap Burberry backpack is going to run you about $200. That’s for the kids backpack, by the way. For the adult packs it seems the price starts to skyrocket.
So you see somebody on the street with a nice expensive backpack, I’d assume that they’re probably recently homeless since the backpack is nice enough that you would want to buy it and since homeless life doesn’t really let you keep a backpack looking nice and since homeless people don’t generally shop around for 200+ dollar backpacks. So maybe you met a recently homeless person, and when you offered them $50 for a backpack that’s worth far more than that they said no.
That’s your indictment against the homeless? That you tried to lowball one of them for what little they have, maybe the only thing of value that they have, and they didn’t bite? Is a homeless person just supposed to take whatever scraps you toss their way and be thankful for it, regardless of the value of what you take in exchange? Is that how you think it should work?
Food stamps are no longer “stamps”. They’re on a plastic card, like a debit card, and the system is such that it can only be used to pay for food items. The only want to “convert” to money is to purchase food items and re-sell them. Which probably does occur. But it’s not terribly convenient.
TANF is the only cash award (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), it’s only available to those with dependent children, and is basically intended for things like toilet paper and toothpaste for the kids and is pretty minimal. More and more aid is going electronic and direct to provider so the possibility of diversion is MUCH less than it used to be.
A significant number of entirely legal prescription medications can generate false positives on the cheaper/less sophisticated tests. Now, when you’re getting tested you’re supposed to list any legit drugs you’re taking and the testing center is supposed to take that into account - but that doesn’t always happen.