Need to read this through to the end. It's got a twist. It's about humanizing the homeless with a goal of generating financial support for them.
Go around to the homeless, tell them you are trying to raise enough money to send some rich kid to Praque for the summer. Explain that his dad is only willing to pay half because his mistress just requested a new sports car.
Here's the deal: Some of these homeless people might say "Eh, sure why not?" and throw a quarter or so into the fund just to "Show the kid a good time."
This would get everybody thinking about charity. "This poor disadvantaged person gave a little bit of the paltry amount of money he has just to show kindness to somebody much more advantaged than him just to be nice. Maybe I should consider paying that kindness shown by somebody much worse off than me forward. (Sorry about the clunky sentence.)
This would be applied in the form of a short documentary with a follow up. A Gofundme page would be set up for these homeless people that showed kindness and generosity even though it might not have been based in logic or justice.
It would be an interesting study in human kindness from the other side. It would also be insanely controversial (good press) and at the end of the day, it could raise some money for some homeless folks.-- doctorremulac3, Dec 20 2018 Monty Python - Dennis Moore https://www.youtube...watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w7:50 on (but all good) [Dub, Dec 20 2018] Similar idea (oops... fraud scheme) https://www.nbcnews...rowdfunding-n936941 [scad mientist, Jan 02 2019] The Economist - UCB research article https://www.economi...ent-from-you-and-meStudy suggests poor are more charitable than wealthy [Whistlebritches, Jan 02 2019] Humanizing the homeless. https://www.youtube...watch?v=TM3G_uzsgH4 [doctorremulac3, Jan 02 2019] I think there is already a thriving market in soliciting donations from the struggling classes, in the guise of helping African villagers plant turnips or something, where half the donations go to head office expenses and the other half goes to fund the charity directors children doing a fact finding mission to some African villages.
Your idea is more blatant but that's a matter of degree not nature.-- pocmloc, Dec 21 2018 Just send all your extra cash and coins to:<> The Trump Foundation<> c/o blissmiss<> 1002 Grand Street<> Springfield, Il<>-- blissmiss, Dec 21 2018 //I think there is already a thriving market in soliciting donations from the struggling classes//
I think you're referring to "charities" that rip off middle class folks under the guise of helping the poor but who simply line their own pockets.
Like the Democrat party.
I had donated to a particular charity for years until a scandal broke that the guys at the top were doing their best to make sure most of the money was going to the organization.
That's the rule of any organization. No matter what the original job the organization was formed to perform, the main job becomes taking care of that organization, even at the expense of the organization's original goals.-- doctorremulac3, Dec 21 2018 Sounds like the Ragnar Danneskjold subplot about piracy on the high seas with the reverse Robin Hood goal of stealing from the commons and giving to the rich.-- LoriZ, Jan 02 2019 Need to read it through to the end.
It's a plan to get money donated to the homeless by showing that some homeless people are thoughtful and giving, even to those more fortunate than them prompting people to think about being thoughtful and giving to them in turn.
Think I'll put that note on the beginning of the post.
This was clearly fishboned by somebody who either didn't read the entire thing or doesn't like the idea of raising money for the homeless.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 02 2019 //That's the rule of any organization. No matter what the original job the organization was formed to perform, the main job becomes taking care of that organization, even at the expense of the organization's original goals.//
I looked into charities a few years ago. In the UK at least, excellent information is available from the government on charities. If I remember correctly, outside a handful of megacharities, the vast majority of charity organizations consist of 2 or fewer people. The average income of those organizations floated very close to how much it would cost to employ the 1-2 people + a few expenses. I came to the conclusion that these charities were simply people collecting money to pay themselves to collect money, with the social benefits of being able to say they ran a charity for disabled pigeon fanciers. It's human nature that motivation to collect money would fall off after the minimum expenses are met, the data looks like that anyhow.
The megacharities are a slightly different beast. They seem to be weaponized marketing exercises which compete for market share. They sell a product, which is a sort of outsourced moral conscience for evilcorps and individuals alike. I was at a xmas party for one er, malignant disease focussed, a charity in 2012 and there were 4 bottles of Bollinger per 8 person table in a very expensive London venue, no doubt completely written off come tax time. When people donate money in the fight against the disease that killed Uncle John, I doubt they realize just how much goes to champagne and braying marketing executives. The charity has an acronym that might be construed as a version of the word "Crook".
I'm sure the initial motives are all very good, but the incentives to actually DO anything as a charity aren't well set out at all. Before you know it, you're undercutting an Ethiopian well-digging company with subsidized rich kids on a feel-good jaunt. Don't get me started on charity runs.-- bs0u0155, Jan 02 2019 // Don't get me started on charity runs. //
That would be a really bad idea, given your state of fitness you'd probably have a heart attack within the first kilometre.-- 8th of 7, Jan 02 2019 Maybe it hasn't made headlines in Europe (and I don't know which side you are from Dr.), but the homeless Gofundme fraud story here in the US <link> has probably greatly diminished the prospects of success for raising money through Gofundme using a documentary of this sort.-- scad mientist, Jan 02 2019 At the risk of getting super personal, my ex wife started a cancer charity when she was diagnosed. Although she had re-married she kept my name and when she passed away only months after her husband I considered taking over the organization in her honor and when people would say "Who are you to do that?" I'd say I'm Mr. _____, her ex who remained a friend of her's through the years. However the idea that even one person on Earth might accuse me of wanting to make even a dime off of this quickly quashed the idea in my head, even though I'd make it clear I wouldn't accept even a single penny, just donating my time. Just wasn't worth it for me.
Too bad, could have helped some people.
Side note: she has the largest park in her state named after her since she was very big into philanthropy. She was very well off. Private jet level well off. Anyway, the park by extension carries my last name to this day. Crazy eh? Weird life I've had.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 02 2019 [Doc] This is not that far-fetched. There is research that suggests the poor are more willing to share what little they have due to the strange human behavior called “empathy”. <link>-- Whistlebritches, Jan 02 2019 Absolutely,
I guess I didn't sell this very well. It's basically an image update for homeless people who are probably assumed to be dishonorable because, well, everything else about them is broken. But if this image could be updated in some cases, perhaps people would be more likely to donate to help the individuals who are themselves kind and generous to those other than themselves.
There's at least one famous case where a homeless person with a great voice over talent got job offers and assistance once he became a bit of a celebrity. I'll put up the link. I'm sure you all know him.
By the way, I'm uncomfortable talking about this stuff because I find many people who broadcast that they're about helping the poor, the disadvantaged etc are often strutting, virtue signalling folks that care more about looking like they're helping than actually helping. Socialists come to mind.
Anyway, Christmas is over. I'm going to get back to minding my own affairs. Anybody wanting to make this documentary, film student or whatever, would probably get some press. Be aware however that giving homeless people money can be a bad thing if they're using it for drugs or booze.
Good luck.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 02 2019 //It's basically an image update for homeless people who are probably assumed to be dishonorable because, well, everything else about them is broken//The problem lies not in the observed but the observer. The problem lies in the idea that the poor deserve to be poor, or are poor because of some regrettable personal defect of character, and with the associated idea that the rich deserve to be rich, and that their riches are linked to the strength of their character. These are not uniquely American assumptions (cf. UK govts 1979 to date), but they are exemplified in American discussion of the poor, the rich and class.
Or, to phrase the question point a different way, why should any person in the subset of those with the least wealth have to give up a proportion of what little they have for the purpose of improving the image that those with more have of those with less? Why should the poor sacrifice yet more to educate the rich? The existence of the poor is a lesson in and of itself. That the rich don't want to learn it is proof that the issue lies other than with the poor.
Also, Praque?-- calum, Jan 03 2019 //Also, Praque?//
Huh?-- doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2019 OK, my apologies for a comment from a tl;dr place. So it's sort of public relations? 'Tis better to give than receive gives way to giving is a prerequisite for receiving? Maybe it's horrible of me, but I tend to think of a lot of the inspiration porn on the TV news as "public relations for charity clients" as a strategy for "loosening donor purse strings." The editorial assumption seems to be that there are "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" and the editorial method might pretty much be "cherry pick as much agency caseload data as it takes to find an example of an extremely deserving poor."-- LoriZ, Jan 03 2019 Oddly enough, I've never heard the terms "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" before which is odd. I guess there's an assumption (a completely wrong assumption) that they're one homogenous, wretched group of people.
There are good poor people and bad poor people, just like there are good rich people and bad rich people. Not sure what you'd do with that fact with regards to fund raising, but uncomfortable though it may be, it is a fact. Is it a useful fact? Ahdhunno.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2019 // they're one homogenous, wretched group of people. //
That's Democrats, but we can see how the confusion would arise.
It is instructive to consider the declension of "to be poor":
"I am unlucky"
"You are unfortunate, and make bad life-choices"
"He is feckless"
"They are a bunch of scrounging pikeys".-- 8th of 7, Jan 03 2019 I've heard it said that these days there's a difference between "broke" and "poor". Broke is a financial situation, poor is a state of mind.
In modern times that's largely true. We all come from peasant backgrounds where starving was a real possibility at some point, but not a lot of that in the modern world. Your society has to be so fucked up to suffer mass starvation at this time in history that starvation is probably merciful if you're living in such a shithole.
That being said, there are those who can't fend for themselves who should be taken care of, but if I were in charge of welfare distribution, I'd need to see a pair of stumps where your legs were or a birth certificate from the 1940s. Other that that, we'll feed you as long as you're really looking for work but don't expect fillet mignon.
In other words, I wouldn't make "farming" poor people an industry. I said earlier how any organization will eventually care about nothing but that organization and if you have a welfare state where the people in charge make a good living running its welfare organizations, no way are they going to want to work towards having fewer poor people. Those folks are their bread and butter.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2019 Human nature being what it is, what might be perceived as a positive outcome for society as a whole would also be negative for a small portion thereof.
Various infectious diseases have been "conquered" - polio, diptheria, smallpox and whooping cough to name but a few. And there was much rejoicing ...
Consider a charity dedicated to the noble, selfless objective of creating a vaccine against or a treatment for Bloodnok's disease. The charity has a part-paid, mostly volunteer board including celebrity patrons, a small paid staff, funds several University research programmes, and has a loyal legion of tin-rattlers and leaflet-posters.
And then one day, some bloke in a lab in Cambridge is mucking about with recombinant DNA and suddenly realizes that he can make a vaccine for Bloodnok's disease.
Quickly, he files a patent. A major pharma company, scenting money from afar, comes a knocking at the door, offering untold wealth in return for a licence to make the vaccine and sell it at an exorbitant price (to recover the costs of the approval process) to wealthy Westerners.
Soon, Bloodnok's disease is just a memory in the developed world. Production of the previous palliative treatment is run down as there's greatly reduced demand - except in the undeveloped world, where they can't afford it anyway; nor can they afford the highly effective, but pricey, vaccine.
Various University projects lose funding; lots of tin-rattlers have no more lapel badges to sell; the role of financing the now-proven vaccine outside the West falls to existing medical agencies already engaged in such activities, and the Bloodnok's Disease Research Fund is quietly dismantled, its objective having been achieved.
It's obvious from this that there will always be some people who lose out when their organization is too successful ...-- 8th of 7, Jan 03 2019 That's why goverment is such a great idea. If things get too good, they just screw everything up, then rush in to fix it.
It's like a fire department equipped with hoses and flame throwers. They're never out of work.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2019 Sort of related, I just coined a couple of new names for goverment types of the kind we have taking over one of the houses of Congress this week.
"Conunists" or "Fauxshovics". Here's how they work:
1- Get lots of corporate money then run for office somewhere to the left of Che Guevera.
2- Get more corporate money then act as a front for all your corporate cronies who paid to get you elected and give them everything they want.
3- Get still more corporate money and tell the people the revolution is right around the corner and that they would have been getting bags of money if it weren't for that pesky other party that's alway screwing things up.
5- Then get more corporate money.
Conunism. Heard it here first folks.-- doctorremulac3, Jan 03 2019 random, halfbakery