Outrageous Panhandlers

[Wise Fool]

I have internet, a phone at my work (not a cellphone), a stable residence with a mailing address, no landline. Yes, I can see how you would need a cellphone if you had no stable address, but you wouldn't need a smartphone. That's a luxury. If I was struggling to get three square meals a day, a smartphone would not be high on my list as far as necessities go. 

What if you got one and then became homeless. Would you sell it? If you wouldn't, doesn't that mean you actually didn't become homeless and were just a fucking fraud?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

What if you got one and then became homeless. Would you sell it? If you wouldn't, doesn't that mean you actually didn't become homeless and were just a fucking fraud?

I sure as hell wouldn't flash it around if I were panhandling, I'll tell ya that much. I'm just saying that if I saw that, I would likely assume that the person was not truly in need. 

[Dr. Pepper]

I have internet, a phone at my work (not a cellphone), a stable residence with a mailing address, no landline. Yes, I can see how you would need a cellphone if you had no stable address, but you wouldn't need a smartphone. That's a luxury. If I was struggling to get three square meals a day, a smartphone would not be high on my list as far as necessities go. 

A cell phone is a cell phone.  I don't understand why a smartphone is arbitrarily given luxury status.  I have no idea how much a person pays for their smartphone because the costs vary wildly.  I got mine for a penny (no contract plan, just happened to be on sale) while another person in this thread might pay $400 for the same thing on Amazon.  

Struggling for meals and housing doesn't mean a person shouldn't have access to communications.  That's considered a basic necessity today.

I sure as hell wouldn't flash it around if I were panhandling, I'll tell ya that much. I'm just saying that if I saw that, I would likely assume that the person was not truly in need. 

Well, the reason you wouldn't flash it around is because you know that there will be judgemental assholes who have determined that certain methods of acquiring money diminish a person's worth as a human and certain people shouldn't be able to access basic services regardless of their current economic status.  Hint: the problem isn't with the person with a phone.

P.S. It's probably not a great idea to assume anything about people who see panhandling.  The person with a smartphone might be suffering serious situational poverty while the person in rags and a dirty face might be going home to the burbs in a nice car.  

[Wise Fool]

I sure as hell wouldn't flash it around if I were panhandling, I'll tell ya that much. I'm just saying that if I saw that, I would likely assume that the person was not truly in need. 

Would you avoid showering too, so as to better conform to moronic societal expectations of what poverty looks like?

[Theda Baratheon]

I think a smart phone, when you're homeless, would actually be close to a necessity. I totally agree with Dr. Pepper; having a smart phone with apps and internet allows you to apply for jobs via your phone, have a number that people can call to reach you ect. It also means you can stay connected to people, use the internet, where not everyone is judging you on panhandling and FLASHING around things. I mean look at the choice of words being used in this thread; flashing! makes the dude sound smarmy and smug, a liar, extravagantly deceitful. 

Someone else mentioned that these fake stories just don't jive - yeah I agree. No doubt there ARE some truth to some of these stories but that's just anecdotal evidence from ONE person usually about ONE person they've encountered so we are supposed to be wary of all seemingly homeless people? I have given people change quite a few times but it's not something I do at all regularly because I never carry change and I don't have lots of money to give but it's never because "oooh...that man who is asking for money which has a social stigma attached and is obviously being judged by most people that walk past him is wearing a GOOD pair of jeans...damn, those aren't PRIMARK jeans, he doesnt conform closely enough to my idea of what a homeless person looks like so he doesn't deserve my hard earned cash whilst he does nothing for his money!!!" I don't think that way at all... 

[HexMachina]

Ugh, it's like the Britain First posts that complain that immigrants and asylum seekers have phones when they come to this country. The mind boggles

[Darzin]

I remember one time we parked our boat under a bridge and there were some homeless guys there we walked up to get some pizza and asked them to keep an eye on it for us. On the way back my dad stopped at the liquor store and bought a cheap  bottle of vodka and gave that to them plus 10 bucks telling them to pay it forward. Everyone seemed pretty happy with that and at 13 I thought i had the coolest dad ever.

[Hutch]

The faux outrage is strong in this thread. Shouldn't a lot of you be over in the Zoolander controversy one?

[Drowned Crow]

The question of who to give money to is indeed a thorny one. If you're going to help one person, what moral right do you have to not help absolutely everyone who wants some of your money, even if it is to pay for the contract on their brand new smartphone? Who has the time to wrestle with ethical quandaries like this? Long story short, I don't give anyone money.

[baxus]

On panhandlers owning iPhones, I can say with 100% certainty I'd absolutely NEVER give them any money.

Before some of you go berserk, let me say that in Serbia iPhone costs 2-3 high school teacher's monthly salaries, depending on you carrier plan. If you can afford that, you can afford food.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Would you avoid showering too, so as to better conform to moronic societal expectations of what poverty looks like?

Personally I would shower, if I had access to facilities, because I hate the way I feel when I haven't showered. That being said, I suspect I would get more panhandling if I looked the part, regardless of how moronic that stereotype might be. I'm much more likely to give if I think the person asking is in genuine need. That is a bit more nebulous than the smartphone bit, I admit.  

[Dr. Pepper]

The mobile industry in the US is such that when I see someone with a smartphone, I automatically assume they paid zero upfront costs on the phone itself.  The phone companies make their money on the data plans and thus can heavily subsidize the costs of the phones for consumers.  People need to have phones before the mobile data providers can make money so it's in their best interests to find ways to get phones to as many as possible.  They also incentivize people to stay with providers by offering yearly or bi-yearly upgrades at no upfront cost to the consumer.  Granted, the industry is changing fast in the last year or two with subsidized mobile providers decreasing in number, yet they are still providing consumers phones with no or low upfront costs via other methods.

To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone is obligated to give panhandlers money.  It's rare that I give them money and I don't feel bad about it at all.  My point in this thread is that it's pretty disgusting for people to express outrage over those who are presumed to be poor to have something we (again, speaking of the US specifically here) consider a pretty basic necessity.  When the argument is that beggars shouldn't be flashing a phone, it becomes clear that what some people actually are arguing is that panhandlers should be wearing a certain costume rather than that they should be experiencing a certain set of conditions in that moment (acute poverty, addiction, mental health problems, etc). 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The mobile industry in the US is such that when I see someone with a smartphone, I automatically assume they paid zero upfront costs on the phone itself.  The phone companies make their money on the data plans and thus can heavily subsidize the costs of the phones for consumers.  People need to have phones before the mobile data providers can make money so it's in their best interests to find ways to get phones to as many as possible.  They also incentivize people to stay with providers by offering yearly or bi-yearly upgrades at no upfront cost to the consumer.  Granted, the industry is changing fast in the last year or two with subsidized mobile providers decreasing in number, yet they are still providing consumers phones with no or low upfront costs via other methods.

To be clear, I'm not saying that anyone is obligated to give panhandlers money.  It's rare that I give them money and I don't feel bad about it at all.  My point in this thread is that it's pretty disgusting for people to express outrage over those who are presumed to be poor to have something we (again, speaking of the US specifically here) consider a pretty basic necessity.  When the argument is that beggars shouldn't be flashing a phone, it becomes clear that what some people actually are arguing is that panhandlers should be wearing a certain costume rather than that they should be experiencing a certain set of conditions in that moment (acute poverty, addiction, mental health problems, etc). 

But you still need money to afford the dataplan. Like I said before, if you are dropping $40-120 bucks a month on a smartphone plan I'm much less likely to believe that you are in need of a handout. It's a pretty simple concept. If that makes me an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Regardless as to whether or not our society perceives cell phones as being a necessity or not is irrelevant. They are not. Food, shelter and clothing are necessities. If you are putting a smartphone above those three things, you are doing it wrong.

[Theda Baratheon]

Here is a good link that touches on a lot of what I wanted to say. 

http://m.2machines.com/162649/

"When it comes to making difficult economic choices, cell phones are the last refuge, likely because mobile phones are relatively easy to get, especially when compared to a landline, car, house or job. And connections enabled by mobile devices can give disenfranchised populations a sense of community while they work to rebuild. A cell phone offers a cheap way to communicate, and even a very basic Internet access can connect them to a wealth of information and resources. On a larger scale, a mobile device is a tether between a homeless person and the larger fabric of society, keeping them from falling into the pale and completely in the margins." 

I mean...how isolated do you want these people to be? Phones are easy to get, especially with monthly plans you can get a pretty good phone with internet and a limited amount of texts and calls for 20 odd quid a month. 

I don't know about iphones in particular but when you don't have anything else but food and clothes what do you expect homeless people to do? Conjure a house out of thin air? A smartphone could help people. 

[Dr. Pepper]

But you still need money to afford the dataplan. Like I said before, if you are dropping $40-120 bucks a month on a smartphone plan I'm much less likely to believe that you are in need of a handout. It's a pretty simple concept. If that makes me an asshole, then I'm an asshole. Regardless as to whether or not our society perceives cell phones as being a necessity or not is irrelevant. They are not. Food, shelter and clothing are necessities. If you are putting a smartphone above those three things, you are doing it wrong.

Not discussing other necessities in a discussion about phones is not putting smartphones above other necessities.  Also, it definitely is relevant whether or not phones are considered a necessity.  You can keep pretending they aren't, but I'll again remind you that you can afford to do so seeing as you a variety of choices in how you communicate with the world.  

Any phone someone has will require them to be able to afford to keep that phone on.  This isn't unique to smartphones so you repeating the fact they have to pay a monthly fee is pretty useless.  Get upset with the providers for charging fees if that's your problem. Your argument is basically summed up as "people need to wear a certain costume in order to ask for any sort of assistance."

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm saying it's a luxury. I admitted earlier that I can see how a cellphone (a burner for example) could be seen as a necessity in the absence of a mailing address. I get that. A smartphone is a whole different deal though.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

You can take photos on an iPhone without an active data plan.

[IamMe90]

 I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm saying it's a luxury. I admitted earlier that I can see how a cellphone (a burner for example) could be seen as a necessity in the absence of a mailing address. i get that. A smartphone is a whole different deal though.

How is it whole different deal? All phones require monthly fees for service. Data plans are not needed to connect a smart phone to a WiFi network, which means that people can utilize smart phones to use a variety of important functions at no cost in many public places. It is possible to use a smartphone to place phone calls using 3rd party apps at no cost this way. 

[Dr. Pepper]

 I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm saying it's a luxury. I admitted earlier that I can see how a cellphone (a burner for example) could be seen as a necessity in the absence of a mailing address. i get that. A smartphone is a whole different deal though.

Why have you decided that one sort of phone is different than another?  A so-called burner still requires money to be in use every day each month and often times the costs of 'burners' is more monthly than having a data plan with one of the major service providers.  

For example, I go to Wal Mart and buy what I'm assuming you define as a burner at a cost of anywhere from $20 to $50.  Add on an extra $5 for sim card, another extra $5 to $15 to activate the sim. Then I need to buy data to use the phone. Walmart's prepaid provider no longer even provides just talk prepaid plans, and the cheapest option is $30/month.  Other providers are around the same or more expensive.  The cheapest option might be Tracfone at $40/90 days.  But obviously, this just means that the minutes won't expire for 90 days, not that it's 90 days of unlimited service.  If a person uses their phone once a day for a text or a 1 min call, then they'd be paying closer to $40 a month.  

On the other hand, a person can get a smartphone for nearly zero cost if they look or find other options.  I'll use me as an example. Mine was a penny.  Literally a penny.  There wasn't even tax involved, no shipping either.  Came with a sim card, though I'm sure I paid a minimal activation fee.  Black Friday or Cyber Monday special.  I pay $30/month for unlimited talk/text and 3gb data, which is way more than I even need.  That's $30, flat charge, nothing else.  So I'm doing better than a so called "burner" phone.  My provider is also considered prepaid, but I have it better than their plans for flip phones as the they are invested in incentivizing me to stay with them so I get rebates every couple of months to go towards my bill or upgrade.  My significant other pays slightly more monthly, closer to that $40 you keep talking about, and that's because they have a lease to own option.  In the span of typing this post the tv has been on a commercial break and at least two cell phone providers have had ads of similar monthly pricing.  

Sure, I'd probably agree that $120/month for a single line is for luxury purposes, likely watching Netflix all day every day in which case they probably wouldn't be panhandling all day.  But you really don't know how much people are paying for things just by the fact that they have them.  You have no idea if the phone is even currently active, you don't know that they aren't sharing it with several other people, you don't know whether or not they had it before experiencing acute poverty.  You are simply deciding that a certain group of people aren't wearing the 'right' costume for your taste.  

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Ok, you guys have convinced me. A portable, wireless, communication device which allows you to connect to the internet is an absolute necessity. A human being couldn't possible survive without one. It's an absolute anomaly that humanity managed to muddle through its' existence for thousands of years without them.