16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That part touches on it, and there are a wide range of reasons why some refuse such accommodations, ranging from experience of violence to deep mistrust to organizations and so on. Then add to this health issues of various sorts, which requires bespoke, and thus expensive support to really help them.

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

When I worked in Norway ,some 40 or 50 years ago we came across an old Norwegian on the state pension.

He told us he used it to travel around the world and that the pension "followed" him.

Travel was more expensive back then .....

So Norway was exporting its surplus to requirements if they felt the urge.

I remember in the Lofoten Islands they used to open the windows in winter (it would go down to -40) because the electricity was so cheap (so much hydro)

They also used to hang out their fresh fish outside the window because it needed firming up as it was "too fresh" for their taste.

Edited Friday at 11:11 PM3 days by geordief

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

When I worked in Norway ,some 40 or 50 years ago we came across an old Norwegian on the state pension.

He told us he used it to travel around the world and that the pension "followed" him.

Travel was more expensive back then .....

So Norway was exporting its surplus to requirements if they felt the urge.

I remember in the Lofoten Islands they used to open the windows in winter (it would go down to -40) because the electricity was so cheap (so much hydro)

They also used to hang out their fresh fish outside the window because it needed firming up as it was "too fresh" for their taste.

.

It's so much more interesting to trade experiences than insults.

Thank you. +1

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

Of course, I was referring to some of the challenges that social workers have brought when talking about reaching out to unhoused folks and the diversity of challenges they face. That being said, these initiatives are notoriously underfunded to begin with, and many, if not most help organizations focus on immediate harm prevention more than anything.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I think religion tries to get people to help others, often in spite of themselves. It may be that certain proponents of the various religions recognized that society would be better off as a result and that this runs against the natural instincts of many.

I am not so sure being helpful to others generally runs against our instincts. It seems to me that unwillingness to help is because of a perception of privation to self from doing so. In my opinion, this stems in large part from the seemingly predominant ethos of "you can never have enough", which places the individual's "needs" over those of society. If true, how can that sort of cooperation be promoted over competition? (don't take that to mean that I place no value on competition, just that it needs to be appropriate)

18 hours ago, studiot said:

I would just like to add that some rough sleepers in the UK choose to avoid accommodation available to them.

Hm, this is also a tough issue…I have never myself been in one of those “Emergency Accomodation” units, but I have heard accounts from homeless people who say that conditions in many of those places are deplorable, to the point that they feel safer sleeping outside.

16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

PS. Not sure where monks fit in such a critique these days. 😉

Depends what kind of “monk” you mean, specifically. In my particular case, our entire tradition is based on alms mendicancy, meaning we live exclusively on material donations freely given by others. We do not use, receive or own money in any form. So we stand outside this system.

But perhaps this might be interesting in the context of this thread: we keep up the tradition of going on “alms round”, meaning a few times a week we walk into town with our alms bowls in the hope of receiving some form of edibles for our (one and only) daily meal. In my experience here in the West, and purely statistically: out of every 100 people I encounter, 96 simply ignore me and walk past; 2 are curious and ask questions, but don’t give anything; 1 will be actively critical, on rare occasions even hostile; and 1 will actually donate food.

The same exercise done in a SE Asian country might yield a very different result. In my experience there are also differences between traditionally catholic and Protestant areas, even within the same country. So, culture does play a role in this question also.

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

8 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Glad to hear it. Let me remind you of my response to all three examples:

As condemnations go, this is pretty mild isn't it? And the ensuing quote only really says that your comments are a reflection of your socioeconomic background. I don't really understand why you seem so upset about it.

Though many apologies, of course, if I've been inadvertently insensitive.

7 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Only @exchemist and that's handbags at ten paces stuff as far as I can tell.

What exactly are you taking umbrage over? My perception of a possible hint of true blue Tory in something you said? Methinks thou dost protest too much!

It was not me that made unprovoked accusations of “slurs” and “dogwhistles”.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

Quite. I spend part of most years with my wife in London. Although we enjoy our time together, it's always something of a relief to get back to Nigeria. The vast majority here live hand to mouth on low, often irregular incomes, yet in general, manage to be much more pleasant and good-natured. Perhaps it's the weather that gives them a sunny disposition.

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

Wealthy people rarely got where they are by being generous.

This thread reminds me of a book by Michael Katz:

The Undeserving Poor: America’s Enduring Confrontation with Poverty (1989)

Katz highlights how throughout American history, the poor have been regarded as undeserving: people who do not deserve sympathy because they brought their poverty on themselves, either through laziness and immorality, or because they are culturally or mentally deficient. This long-dominant view sees poverty as a personal failure, serving to justify America's mean-spirited treatment of the poor.

It applies pretty well world wide of course.

Edited Saturday at 01:11 PM2 days by sethoflagos

I'd guess people living near the edge naturally develop more compassion, so more likely to offer help to those teetering right on the edge. The wealthy, for the most part, started with some generational wealth, so they have no direct knowledge of the edge. As we used to say in the States about political candidates who came from privilege, "born on third base but thinks he hit a triple." (for any lacking a baseball-to-cricket translator, I can explain this further on request)

The writer @sethoflagos mentions I agree with: Americans have long been encouraged to view poverty as a moral failure. And the converse of course, that wealth is a product of high moral character. (Insert guffaw or similar explosion of laughter here)

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I'd guess people living near the edge naturally develop more compassion, so more likely to offer help to those teetering right on the edge. The wealthy, for the most part, started with some generational wealth, so they have no direct knowledge of the edge. As we used to say in the States about political candidates who came from privilege, "born on third base but thinks he hit a triple." (for any lacking a baseball-to-cricket translator, I can explain this further on request)

I think most poor people know how hard they work, so they might not succumb to the propaganda that poor are in that situation because they are lazy, which removes a barrier to helping others, if they can.

One of the insidious behaviors we have in the US is a willingness to deny help, if it means people we hate are hurt. A certain swath of people can’t stand the thought of one undeserving person (in their view) getting help. The right has made an industry out of pointing out the anomalies and offering them up as typical to undermine social programs that help people, sowing the notion that people are getting away with something and ripping us off. (of course this doesn’t extend to tax cheats for some reason)

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

I think most poor people know how hard they work, so they might not succumb to the propaganda that poor are in that situation because they are lazy, which removes a barrier to helping others, if they can.

One of the insidious behaviors we have in the US is a willingness to deny help, if it means people we hate are hurt. A certain swath of people can’t stand the thought of one undeserving person (in their view) getting help. The right has made an industry out of pointing out the anomalies and offering them up as typical to undermine social programs that help people, sowing the notion that people are getting away with something and ripping us off. (of course this doesn’t extend to tax cheats for some reason)

Just my perception based on an outsider's view who did admittedly visit the US a long time ago.

I have heard recently that the "American Dream" is in its death throes because the expectation that an average person could ,by means of hard work reasonably expect to become wealthy or well off eventually is no longer feasible for a (very?) large proportion of the population.

If I have that right the population as a whole classes may get to learn a bit of solidarity for those less well off than themselves and to fawn a little less over those who have been able to accumulate wealth more than them.

I read quite recently that ,in USA the disapproval towards what are perveived as Socialist policies ,whilst still strong has been overtaken by the disapproval towards what are seen as MAGA policies.

A long time coming.

Edited Saturday at 10:22 PM2 days by geordief

Today, I've been truly and utterly gobsmacked.

For a few years now I''ve been following Doug Helvering's ''An American Reacts" type Youtube channel as he explores the progressive rock music that formed the backdrop to my teenage years in the seventies. A bit of an odd-one-out compared to my other subscriptions, but I find his observations witty and intelligent, and here hidden from much of the outside world in my isolated little man cave, I find that he helps keep me grounded in three key areas:

• Not all ''An American Reacts" type videos are rubbish.

• Not all Americans are bad people.

• Not all christians are bad people.

Out of the blue, this week he posted a video about himself, his 'religion', and his views on the state of US politics.

I was not expecting this at all, (and bear with me, it becomes highly relevant to the OP as he develops his thoughts)

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Today, I've been truly and utterly gobsmacked.

For a few years now I''ve been following Doug Helvering's ''An American Reacts" type Youtube channel as he explores the progressive rock music that formed the backdrop to my teenage years in the seventies. A bit of an odd-one-out compared to my other subscriptions, but I find his observations witty and intelligent, and here hidden from much of the outside world in my isolated little man cave, I find that he helps keep me grounded in three key areas:

• Not all ''An American Reacts" type videos are rubbish.

• Not all Americans are bad people.

• Not all christians are bad people.

Out of the blue, this week he posted a video about himself, his 'religion', and his views on the state of US politics.

I was not expecting this at all, (and bear with me, it becomes highly relevant to the OP as he develops his thoughts)

Except for the part about being estranged from family, he pretty much describes how I grew up and puts a pretty good perspective on the problem posed in the OP. Unfortunately, he seems no closer to realizing any kind of solution than we have here. I wonder if it really boils down to just trying to change the minds of people who won't change them regardless of any evidence contrary to what they believe.

22 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

But perhaps this might be interesting in the context of this thread: we keep up the tradition of going on “alms round”, meaning a few times a week we walk into town with our alms bowls in the hope of receiving some form of edibles for our (one and only) daily meal. In my experience here in the West, and purely statistically: out of every 100 people I encounter, 96 simply ignore me and walk past; 2 are curious and ask questions, but don’t give anything; 1 will be actively critical, on rare occasions even hostile; and 1 will actually donate food.

Interestingly, I have done a fair amount of hitchhiking in the US (east to west a half dozen times, north to south a couple, and dozens of shorter trips) Only twice have I ever felt unsafe, once because of the driving and once because the guy was an armed lunatic I later found out had robbed a qiuckie-mart. In general, I have met very interesting people and most seem to like ideas such as feeding and housing everyone but I wonder how much my view of strangers is skewed by meeting only those willing to help to begin with? After all, the vast majority of people just drive on past. I would agree with the notion that culture pays a large part, there are definitely places where it is much easier or harder to get rides but I have been picked up by all kinds, from a barely running VW Beetle to very expensive luxury and sports cars to brand new 18 wheelers.

19 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Except for the part about being estranged from family, he pretty much describes how I grew up and puts a pretty good perspective on the problem posed in the OP. Unfortunately, he seems no closer to realizing any kind of solution than we have here. I wonder if it really boils down to just trying to change the minds of people who won't change them regardless of any evidence contrary to what they believe.

I've watched that video through start to finish twice now and I feel so sorry for him: over 40 years to get through a process I'd got through by my eighth birthday.

I've not spent much time in America; a short holiday in Sarasota; a winter working in Maine. What struck me was that the superficial pleasantness of most people I met was coupled with a sense of some deep, repressed anger I couldn't understand. For why? You're living the American dream, you have evrything you want, don''t you?

More than thirty years on, I'm now seeing America through different eyes. I wish you well.

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Doug Helvering

Depending on the particular music being discussed, I am a viewer of "The Daily Doug". I've watched enough of his videos that this video took me by surprise. It pleases me that he was able to escape the clutches of such a controlling religion, but it is sad that it was at the cost of a relationship with his family. I agree with what he said about capitalism - that for it to work, it requires both winners and losers.

And yes, I am a fan of progressive rock.

22 minutes ago, KJW said:

Depending on the particular music being discussed, I am a viewer of "The Daily Doug". I've watched enough of his videos that this video took me by surprise. It pleases me that he was able to escape the clutches of such a controlling religion, but it is sad that it was at the cost of a relationship with his family. I agree with what he said about capitalism - that for it to work, it requires both winners and losers.

And yes, I am a fan of progressive rock.

Well I can't agree with that trite statement about winners and loosers.

Whilst exploitation can be the case, for example the British East India Company, from Robert Owen to the great Quaker foundations (Cadburys, Clarks, etc) capitalism worked very well for all.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

One of the insidious behaviors we have in the US is a willingness to deny help, if it means people we hate are hurt. A certain swath of people can’t stand the thought of one undeserving person (in their view) getting help.

That does seem to be a reason why a lot of people are put off helping others.
And I realize its only anecdotal, but everyone has seen a young man, un his early 30s, pan handling, where I retired at 67 ( and would still be working if I could see to drive to work ); just the other day, I still gave him my loose change, but I know there are jobs available.
Also anecdotal, I have gone into a grocery store and used up all the cash I had with me, when a young girl asks for change. I apologize, having no cash left, and ask her to take whatever she wants from my grocery bags. She tells me to "Go f**k myself".

These kinds of behaviors sour people on helping others, even though it is only one observation from which you shouldn't draw generalizations.

14 hours ago, geordief said:

I have heard recently that the "American Dream" is in its death throes because the expectation that an average person could ,by means of hard work reasonably expect to become wealthy or well off eventually is no longer feasible for a (very?) large proportion of the population.

The 'American Dream' of becoming wealthy is no longer available; you need to be a crook, and corrupt, to become wealthy, as exemplified by a President who is their role model. But the 'American Dream' compared to most of the rest of the world, is still a thing.
I have never been able to figure out what so many Americans are complaining about, or why they are so angry at immigrants and foreigners.
They don't seem to realize how good they have it.
If only they could keep the Billionaires from turning the other 90 % of the population to servitude ( or spending 1.5 Trillion on DoW ), there would be plenty of wealth to go around and even help the rest of the world.

15 hours ago, geordief said:

heard recently that the "American Dream" is in its death throes because the expectation that an average person could ,by means of hard work reasonably expect to become wealthy or well off eventually is no longer feasible

Being poor in America is far harder work than being wealthy.

On 7/24/2026 at 9:03 PM, npts2020 said:

I am not so sure being helpful to others generally runs against our instincts.

I tend to agree, and for me the appropriate framing is how we define “others.”

For the most part, most humans tend to help those they consider to be part of their own family or tribe. We help our children, our parents, brothers and sisters bc they’re members of our group.

Some expand that group membership to include cousins, friends, coworkers, neighbors, fellow members of the church. They’re like us and part of our circle so we help them.

Others expand that concept farther and consider the entire state or nation, those sharing backgrounds or skin color, and others still expand that concept of “us” to include humanity as a whole, or nature itself and all animals, of the earth in its entirety and so that’s where they focus their desire and ability to help and share wellbeing.

Humans helping others is super common, I agree. The challenge is how big that circle of “others” gets defined, or perhaps more to the point, how small.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I can't agree with that trite statement about winners and loosers.

Whilst exploitation can be the case, for example the British East India Company, from Robert Owen to the great Quaker foundations (Cadburys, Clarks, etc) capitalism worked very well for all.

IIRC, Karl Marx claimed that the slaves in the USA were better off than the workers in England. I understand his point was that the freedom that the workers in England had was a mere illusion, and that the working conditions of the workers in England were much poorer than the working conditions of the slaves in the USA.

Nowadays in well-functioning democracies, government regulations curtail the excesses of capitalism, but even in these places, there are still very uneven distributions of wealth, unless a government has made a point of adopting strongly socialist policies within the otherwise capitalist system.

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Being poor in America is far harder work than being wealthy.

Not necessarily true, especially if one has no dependents. I know a few who are intentionally poor because they don't feel like working but that is admittedly a minority.

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

I tend to agree, and for me the appropriate framing is how we define “others.”

For the most part, most humans tend to help those they consider to be part of their own family or tribe. We help our children, our parents, brothers and sisters bc they’re members of our group.

Some expand that group membership to include cousins, friends, coworkers, neighbors, fellow members of the church. They’re like us and part of our circle so we help them.

Others expand that concept farther and consider the entire state or nation, those sharing backgrounds or skin color, and others still expand that concept of “us” to include humanity as a whole, or nature itself and all animals, of the earth in its entirety and so that’s where they focus their desire and ability to help and share wellbeing.

Humans helping others is super common, I agree. The challenge is how big that circle of “others” gets defined, or perhaps more to the point, how small.

I believe this to be the gist of the problem. In pure capitalism, that group gets shrunk down to one, the individual under consideration. Usually, that individual chooses to expand their group because it is recognized to be in his/her benefit to do so. I suppose the real question in the OP is how do we keep those with interest in the smallest groups from hoarding all of the world's resources?

13 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I believe this to be the gist of the problem. In pure capitalism, that group gets shrunk down to one, the individual under consideration. Usually, that individual chooses to expand their group because it is recognized to be in his/her benefit to do so. I suppose the real question in the OP is how do we keep those with interest in the smallest groups from hoarding all of the world's resources?

There might be no problem if hoarding was all they were allowed to do.

So long as they invest their money so that it is available to the general public (and for the government to allocate according to the general consensus) that might be acceptable.

What is definitely not acceptable imo is for that money to be used for political influence or for greater wealth to be used as a means of bypassing the legal structures that are supposed to apply to everyone equally.

Nor should the uber wealthy have a greater say in the direction society takes when they are free to direct huge amounts of money in particular directions without public approval.

1 hour ago, KJW said:

IIRC, Karl Marx claimed that the slaves in the USA were better off than the workers in England. I understand his point was that the freedom that the workers in England had was a mere illusion, and that the working conditions of the workers in England were much poorer than the working conditions of the slaves in the USA.

Nowadays in well-functioning democracies, government regulations curtail the excesses of capitalism, but even in these places, there are still very uneven distributions of wealth, unless a government has made a point of adopting strongly socialist policies within the otherwise capitalist system.

Marx had a point, some workers lived in appalling conditions in Britain.

But that does not invalidate my point which was not to tar everyone with the same brush.

I doubt for instance, that all the slaves in America lived in greater luxury than the best conditions in Britain.

We are not all murderers, just because there are some murderers amongst us.

It is of interest that the British were not only the inventors of capitalism but the most ruthless proponents of it

But on the other hand they were also the leaders and example setters in abolishing slavery and giving workers better conditions.

11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I know a few who are intentionally poor because they don't feel like working

Forgive me for not proactively clarifying that my comment wasn’t intended to focus on people choosing to be poor on purpose.