an argument against giving beggars money

I honestly don't care about your argument. If I see someone in need and it is within my power to help them.. I help them. It's just that simple. Because what is really important in life, has absolutely NOTHING to do with money. Until you realize that you will never be happy, or satisfied no matter how many dollars you squander and squirrel away.

Boy, the self-righteousness is deep in here.

a reply to: introspectionist
Yeah just like taxes. Don't tax the wealthy guy he might make a job with that money. Or maybe he'll just run up the cost of oil, or wheat, by speculating. He can do what he wants to with the dollar. I'd let him keep it. and if I was you I would keep it to. Poor people don't need money they need re-education. What is poverty anyway but a mind set. Having no money has got nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: introspectionist
Let's say you give a beggar one dollar. You got that dollar from your employer for doing some work. The dollar he gave you he cannot give to anyone else. He could have given someone else that dollar in exchange for work but decided to give it to you.

Now if you give that dollar to a beggar, that potential other employee is not able to get it. That potential employee could be the beggar.

By giving money to beggars you actually contribute to maintaining unemployment and competition for jobs at a high level, and thus making it harder for said beggar to get a job.

I'd appreciate if anyone could dissect this argument and/or argue against it.

Do you give money to beggars? Why/why not?

In my country there are a lot of Gypsies who are beggars, most beggars are Gypsies in my country. A lot of people don't want to give them money because they think they are not sincere. That's a whole other discussion though.

The employee has that dollar and spends it. Now an employer has that dollar again and the cycle continues.

With the beggar he also spends the dollar which returns it to the hands of an employer.

Your premise is flawed as they both fuel economic activity.

Just got back home from my slave job. Will read all posts tomorrow, Saturday, when I'm not tired. But I can say that of the posts I have read so far, I am very disappointed. It's that emotional intelligence. Poor you for having it.

originally posted by: introspectionist
Just got back home from my slave job. Will read all posts tomorrow, Saturday, when I'm not tired. But I can say that of the posts I have read so far, I am very disappointed. It's that emotional intelligence. Poor you for having it.

If you are talking about "Professional Beggers" I totally agree with you.

But, if you are talking about people that are just down on their luck.

That's where we would disagree.

Title should be "An argument against giving a beggar money, I am a Republican"

originally posted by: mymymy
Title should be "An argument against giving a beggar money, I am a Republican"

I didn't ever say it was my argument, I just said it was an argument. A subtle difference that emotional thinkers seem unable to make. I wanted to discuss the argument, but as usual with emotionally intelligent people it turned into mud slinging as opposed to intellectual debate.

originally posted by: introspectionist
Let's say you give a beggar one dollar. You got that dollar from your employer for doing some work. The dollar he gave you he cannot give to anyone else. He could have given someone else that dollar in exchange for work but decided to give it to you.

Now if you give that dollar to a beggar, that potential other employee is not able to get it. That potential employee could be the beggar.

By giving money to beggars you actually contribute to maintaining unemployment and competition for jobs at a high level, and thus making it harder for said beggar to get a job.

I'd appreciate if anyone could dissect this argument and/or argue against it.

Do you give money to beggars? Why/why not?

In my country there are a lot of Gypsies who are beggars, most beggars are Gypsies in my country. A lot of people don't want to give them money because they think they are not sincere. That's a whole other discussion though.

Well let's look at your argument here. You say, "If I give the dollar that my employer gave to me to the beggar, then my employer can't give that dollar to anyone else.". Your employer can't give that dollar to anyone else anyway because he already gave it to you. The dollar you have gotten from your employer belongs to you until you give it to somebody else. You could give it back to your employer, but that would be stupid. (Not something we would want to rule out in this case.) So I guess you are asking is it productive,( seems you are very concerned about the productive of that dollar), to give this dollar to the beggar? One thing I can assure you without too much hesitation is that that dollar given to the beggar will be spent soon. I don't expect that the beggar will bury the dollar for later use. Since the velocity of money is a primary economic stimulator, I would suggest that giving that dollar to the beggar is the very best use for it, as far as helping the economy that is.

As to your concern over your responsibility to your employer in your spending of the dollar, I believe it is a little misfounded. I am sure he has plenty of dollars, probably just laying around looking to get back into the world and just move around, doing what it was born to do. I would suggest that you go back to your employer and tell him about this beggar and urge him to pump some of those lazy dollars into this beggars hand so they can be spent.

That creaky sound that your hear? That'll be the economy starting to move, or it could be the sound of your better angels awakening.

Ok so the argument that the dollar goes to, say, a grocery store when the beggar buys with it and that it would therefore make no difference. I think this argument might be flawed.

Let's say that the beggar would shop at this grocery store no matter if he got the dollar from me as charity or he got it from employment. Ok, so that rules out the grocery store.

Then you could argue that if I were to give it to him as payment for a service instead of directly to him as charity, this would take someone out of work, someone who would have provided this service instead. I think this can be refuted. I didn't have the option to pay someone else for this service. There were two options with the dollar. Either I gave it as charity or I gave it in return for a service, a service which I would not have been able to afford if the beggar hadn't provided it because in this case he would then have taken the dollar without providing the service.

Giving the beggar one dollar as charity actually reduced the total available employment in the society by one dollar.

Then one might argue that when the beggar works he burns 200 calories that he would not have burned otherwise, so he has to buy food for 200 calories. That adds another dimension of difficulty. I don't know if that's something that's normally discussed in contexts like this.

The attitude of most people in this thread is something I see a lot of among so-called truth seekers, and it is the reason I'm so fed up with them a lot of times; presumptuousness.

a reply to: introspectionist

Your example suggests that somehow increasing competition for a job will decrease unemployment. I fail to see how that logic works. The more who want something, the less who end up getting it. Simply increasing competition for a job does not mean it will create more jobs. The creation of jobs is entirely separate, and based upon demand for a product or service and not on the number of people who want the job that provides the product or service.

The demand for products and services is based on need or desire, thereby creating jobs to provide those products or services. Whether you spend the dollar or the beggar spends the dollar the same amount of demand is there. Maybe not for a specific product or service, but for a product or service. That is, assuming both you and the beggar are going to spend the money rather than save it, and I would actually think it more likely the beggar would spend the money rather than save it, so at the very least, giving your money to the beggar promotes a stable economy, whereas if you saved the dollar it might actually be contributing to unemployment by removing the money from circulation rather than spending it and helping to maintain jobs. By not giving to the beggar and saving your dollar you could actually be promoting your own demise (i.e. unemployment).

Increased demand for jobs is what high unemployment is. The increase in demand for jobs is synonymous with unemployment and not the other way around.

a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

I think you might be misunderstanding my post. I didn't say or mean that increased competition for jobs means decreased unemployment. I said that by giving money to beggars you contribute to maintaining a high competition for jobs, and high unemployment. And did you read the post above yours?

If you won't give help to others, or what you see as so-called beggars in this life, when you pass from this world you'll be the one begging. Begging for forgiveness for your lack of compassion toward them, and your shame may be more than you can bear.

originally posted by: starborn
If you won't give help to others, or what you see as so-called beggars in this life, when you pass from this world you'll be the one begging. Begging for forgiveness for your lack of compassion toward them, and your shame may be more than you can bear.

You are off-topic.

That dollar your employer gave you was not "given" to you, first of all. It is incorrect to state he could have given that dollar to someone else, because it really doesn't matter who he pays it to, because he will be paying somebody. The employer is out of the equation after that. You have earned that money and are free to do whatever you wish with it. Giving a dollar to a homeless person is not contributing to unemployment at all. The only way it might contribute is if the beggar decides it is more profitable to beg as opposed to work. And regardless, that money is still going back into the economy in one way or another.

I'm going to think more about this issue. Have to sleep now. No one has commented on this argument:

originally posted by: introspectionist

originally posted by: thishereguy
a reply to: introspectionist

but the dollar you give the beggar is going to someone else, potentially another employee somewhere else?

maybe a fast food place or liquor store , maybe gas station for smokes?

Yes, I thought about that. But my point is that since the dollar is in the hands of the beggar without him working for it, and him then buying with it in one of those places you mentioned, that dollar is not going to give the beggar employment in one of those places either. The act of giving money directly to the beggar means it cannot go from any potential employer to the beggar. And the beggar would probably prefer to work one hour under a roof instead of sitting out in the cold for five hours to gain the same amount. Yet by giving him that amount you make sure it is not going to go to him the preferred route.

a reply to: introspectionist

If I give a "beggar" a dollar, it affects no one but me, because I AM my employer.
People pay me for my goods and services. The prices they pay are based on my cost of supplies, time, and space, and amount of work, care, and love I put into them. If I do well, I even get tips - free money.
If I chose to share my good fortune and blessings with one less fortunate, I believe that it will come back to me, one way or another, and it always does - sometimes even more.
My dollar, my choice.

a reply to: introspectionist

I suggest if you can spare some change .... why not? If they are cons let God sort them out. The important thing to remember is charity! Be generous to mankind and you will be rewarded for your kind spirit.