As i went to buy some groceries today there was a homeless guy outside asking for change. Of course i ignored him. After I did my shopping I got in line at the register and he's in line in front of me. I thought "oh he's buying food with the change he got" and i kinda felt bad for ignoring him. but then he walked up to the cashier and promptly asked for two lottery tix, and she says "again?"

and then on the way out he ask me for money again!

I wonder if things like this are why i'm so cynical.

what a dork-face. i woulda said something to him. something to the effect of "stop being a parasite and help yourself!"

I would've just pointed, laugh at him for a brief moment and
then walk out.

Would it make you feel better If this homeless person bought some food instead of the lottery tickets? Why?
You didn't have a quater to spare and yet you feel you have the right to criticize the way he spends his money?

um, yeah. then he's doing some good with the money. that's why there are "feed the homeless" drives not "buy lotto tix for the homeless" drives. I would be more likly to give change to someone who needs it, AND would use it.

hence a friend of mine never gives money to this one guy she sees alot because she knows the only thing he ever does with it is buy alcohol. sobering up would be a good thing for him. I suppose it's his life, but she doesn't have to help him continue to be a drunk.

lemme give you an example. once this 12yr old kid asked me if I could spare a quater, and gave me some story about needing to catch the bus home. I gave him and quater and i actually saw him use it to get on the bus later. Now do you think i would have felt differently if I had seen him use it to buy some cigaretts or something?

if people stopped giving the homeless money and gave them, say, half a sandwich they happened to be eating then there wouldnt be this problem. you cannot trust the homeless with money. its the reason they are homeless in the first place - get their priorities wrong when it comes to money.

This reminds me of something my good friend, Michael Jordan (yes) said to another rich basketball player whom a homeless dude asked for some change. He stopped him, and said, "if he can ask for some spare change, then he can say 'Do you want fries with that'" What great advice. Michael Jordan may be a miser in some ways, but those days in the 'hood taught him a good lesson about hard work and virility. I think we can all learn a little lesson here.

Where I am at present there seems to be alot of homeless people. I too ignore them and in some respects I have good reason to.

I see the same "homeless" people sitting outside the same shops, and I believe they sit there for the same reason... "Drug money".

They come out of their squat's during the day, beg, scavenge and probably steal just to feed their habits.

Such people probably were housed in a shelter at some point but tend to sell all the furnishings to feed their habit, and end up going on a "Run" to escape justice for stealing and selling the furniture.

Another type of homeless person did roam the streets around here, and they were "Jobless" ex-oilfield engineers that had reached a point where they could no longer keep up with the younger people. They might own houses, but they tend to spend all day wasted on alcohol and bumming cigarettes off of people.

Do you feel like sparing change?

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
As i went to buy some groceries today there was a homeless guy outside asking for change.
Damn homeless people!
They should all be shot!

What is the story about homeless people in the US?

Here anyone willing to register at the red cross can get about 550 dollars a month (age 23+). Bed and breakfast for these guys is about 7 dollars if I am not mistaken. Anyone begging here is without a doubt either too hardheaded to register or earning some extra change, usually for their 'special needs'.

The social wellfare system there is said to be a bit less providing. I wouldn't mind hearing details.

Originally posted by spacemanspiff
As i went to buy some groceries today there was a homeless guy outside asking for change. Of course i ignored him. After I did my shopping I got in line at the register and he's in line in front of me. I thought "oh he's buying food with the change he got" and i kinda felt bad for ignoring him. but then he walked up to the cashier and promptly asked for two lottery tix, and she says "again?"

and then on the way out he ask me for money again!

I wonder if things like this are why i'm so cynical.

I say Live and let Live.........YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS AROUND THE CORNER!!!:cool:

the obvious answer would be to forbid all gambling, lotteries and related stuff...

then the bum can't buy a lottery ticket...

don't forget to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes while you are at it...

if we approach this subject smartly then there will be only healthy food and beverages left for the bum to buy...haha...that should teach him.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
the obvious answer would be to forbid all gambling, lotteries and related stuff...

then the bum can't buy a lottery ticket...

don't forget to outlaw alcohol and cigarettes while you are at it...

if we approach this subject smartly then there will be only healthy food and beverages left for the bum to buy...haha...that should teach him.

I would'nt say he was a bum..more of a poor lonely down and out..!!:cool: :D

Originally posted by IXL777
I would'nt say he was a bum..more of a poor lonely down and out..!!:cool: :D

yeah ok, but it takes less effort to type 'bum' than 'a poor lonely down and out'

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
yeah ok, but it takes less effort to type 'bum' than 'a poor lonely down and out'
I agree...some are bums..some are down and outs and both are scroungers.....:D

Originally posted by IXL777
I agree...some are bums..some are down and outs and both are scroungers.....:D

Most of the people on the streets have a history of mental illness and many are incapable of holding down a job (there but for the grace of god). The seeming increase in numbers (at least in the UK) is as much a result of the decrease in care facilities as anything else.

Having said that, there are some that I give to and others that I don't.

Cheers,

Ron.

Originally posted by RDT2
Most of the people on the streets have a history of mental illness and many are incapable of holding down a job (there but for the grace of god). The seeming increase in numbers (at least in the UK) is as much a result of the decrease in care facilities as anything else.

Having said that, there are some that I give to and others that I don't.

Cheers,

Ron.

Ron , Spurious and I were joking.....as i said before ....but for the grace of the Goddess.....go I :cool:

Originally posted by IXL777
Ron , Spurious and I were joking

Yep - I caught that, and no offence intended - it was some of the earlier posters who were less than sympathetic.

Cheers,

Ron.

Soilent green....

Originally posted by Vortexx
Soilent green....

Soylent Green? Good movie - I have a list of people I'd like to nominate and none of them are homeless.

Cheers,

Ron.

If you really wanna help the homeless, then give your money to a food drive, soup kitchen, or church/synagogue/etc... because these organizations are careful about seperating the fakes (EX: In Washington D.C., it is estimated that at least 60% of the homeless are poseing, and some make as much as $40,000 a year.) from the real homeless that need help.

Originally posted by RDT2
Yep - I caught that, and no offence intended - it was some of the earlier posters who were less than sympathetic.

Cheers,

Ron.

No problem Ron...us doctors are always taking the micky!!!:D :D :m:

You need to take a couple of advanced courses in economics and study the Utility of Money function.

To vastly oversimplify, that dollar is not going to change the guy's life. Even a few dollars every day, or however much he manages to cop from people who feel sorry for him. Winning the lottery would change his life. In other words, not all dollars have the same value, so gambling can be a rational choice for any individual at any moment.

In fact, if you're looking for a scientific rather than moral argument to ban gambling, that's where you should start.

If he were buying just one ticket, there's another common scenario. You buy your ticket and you sit there for hours fantasizing about what you will do when you win the million bucks or whatever. If you're good at fantasizing it can make you really happy -- increased endorphin levels and everything. A whole lotta entertainment and happiness for one dollar.

If he's buying two tickets then that's not his particular model. But it is the motivation for a lot of people who are solvent but not prosperous.

Yet another rational reason to gamble that could be used as an excuse to outlaw it.

What really galls me is that the same people who believe that the one chance in fifty thousand of being in a road accident isn't statistically significant so they don't bother buckling up, are the same people who believe that the one chance in a hundred gazillion of winning the lottery IS statistically significant so they pour money down that toilet every week.

Econ is actually a pretty interesting course and full of surprises.

Finaly, an economist!

> The "Utility of Money" function
> You need to take a couple of advanced courses in economics
> and study the Utility of Money function.
>
> To vastly oversimplify, that dollar is not going to change the
> guy's life. Even a few dollars every day, or however much he
> manages to cop from people who feel sorry for him. Winning
> the lottery would change his life. In other words, not all dollars
> have the same value, so gambling can be a rational choice for
> any individual at any moment.

Perhaps those advanced courses wouldn't be too much of a revelation because I have been studying economy for quite some time now, 3 trimesters of microeconomics, and all this time I thought that income had decreasing returns to scale when it comes to overall consumptive use..... Or better put: a decling marginal consumption use.

To oversimplify:

A guy has a coin, heads you win 50 dollars, tails you lose 50. Provided that everything goes fair etc. Your expected return is 0 and you will use time. So that deal sucks. But moreover, why does it suck: Because if you lose 50 dollars you might eat canfood for a month and if you win 50 you will go see a movie and drink something afterwards with friends.

The fantasy thingie is the whole point. These people have plenty of time and, in their fantasy, a fair chance to be back in business.

Two tickets... probably because he has grown tired of "losing" all these years and wants to "increase his chances".

Thinking about the whole lotterything, it could have good returns if people were to automate the ticketsales and get some income out of the whole television happening. Wouldn't the first lottery to have a good return on investment be an instant hit? Everyone who has ever postulated to be risk-neutral would have to participate. I wouldn't mind marketing that one.

Less then one hour ago I was told that my parents were involved in a car accident featuring a 78 year-old-lady and, in the end, 6 totalled cars... seatbelts are a good thing, as is good insurances.

> Econ is actually a pretty interesting course and full of surprises.

Hear hear.

Originally posted by adunguem factus homo
All this time I thought that income had decreasing returns to scale when it comes to overall consumptive use..... Or better put: a decling marginal consumption use.The problem with economic theories is that they work in reality, a universe in which a good many people do not make important decisions. The fantasy thingie is the whole point. These people have plenty of time and, in their fantasy, a fair chance to be back in business. Two tickets... probably because he has grown tired of "losing" all these years and wants to "increase his chances".Exactly! We have as much trouble dealing with the fact that laymen believe in economic fantasies as physicists have with the fact that they believe in the supernatural. We think that if we just make our position a little clearer everyone will suddenly get the gospel of reason.Thinking about the whole lottery thing, it could have good returns if people were to automate the ticket sales and get some income out of the whole television happening. Wouldn't the first lottery to have a good return on investment be an instant hit? Everyone who has ever postulated to be risk-neutral would have to participate. I wouldn't mind marketing that one.It is not my observation that risk-neutrality is a major factor in people's choice among games of chance. Consider the popularity of betting on horse racing, another government-run game with a low payout that dissipates its profits in its own inefficiency. Nor have any non-gamblers given me reason to believe that they would become gamblers if only a risk-neutral game were available. It appears to me that people gamble, don't gamble, or choose a particular game, based on feelings rather than reason. I will look for that to change as soon as faith healing ceases to be a lucrative career!