Here’s something to put in that cup
What do you
do when you see someone begging on the streets? Is it a bad idea to give them money in case they spend it on
(legal) drugs, or do they have a right to these simple luxuries like everyone
else? Is suspended coffee a way to
solve this problem or is it also an unnecessary and perhaps even harmful
luxury? Or is it a good idea because it
takes away an excuse from those who could afford to help the homeless but do
not?
I definitely agree with everything what was said in the article. Personally, I am also reluctant to give away money to someone who just begs on the street. On the other hand, I would give up few cents anytime, if I saw a person playing a musical instrument or selling magazines outdoors. Even though, both often involve the risk of the money ending up in the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI have already read about the idea of the suspended coffee few times. As the author mentions, it is one of the best ways of making sure that the good will is going to contribute to someone’s happiness. However, not only does it help the poor, but the businesses might very likely profit as well. People would hopefully spend more money, while the coffee shops would aid the homeless at no expense.
Furthermore, I love the idea of donating one extra coffee per each suspended coffee. Similarly, I believe that there are in fact almost no costs for the outlets. In addition, they could allow the customers to donate anything they choose to. I think a sandwich would help even more than the coffee. Hopefully, I will once live somewhere I could take advantage of this idea.
On a few occasions I have given money to an individual which was doing something (for example playing a musical instrument) or one which smiled at me, but, like Simon, I am usually reluctant to give money to the homeless on the streets. Apart from the feeling that it is not my money to give because it is my parents work hard every day and earn it, I also don’t know how to judge whether the individual will spend the money on food or on products which won’t help them. I do sometimes give the homeless vouchers for food (like Ticket Restaurant) because I know that then they cannot spend the money on anything else, but I do this only when I’m feeling very “bold” since I usually feel too shy or embarrassed to do it.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to the writer of this article, I also heard of “suspended coffee” for the first time when I read a post about it on Facebook. It instantly struck me as an amazing idea. It skips the whole feeling of self-awareness and awkwardness which I feel revolves around giving money to the homeless, and just leaves both people involved (the person in need and the one which bought the coffee) with a good feeling. If a major company were to start such a campaign, it would also definitely be beneficial both for the company, which would receive free positive advertising, since more people would buy coffee from them and they would be viewed as a company which helps people in need.
However, I would be even more delighted if this principle was applied to a different product, not coffee. To me, coffee is classified with products like alcohol and cigarettes; it is something that is not needed at all and seems to do more harm than good to the human body (I know there are different opinions concerning this, this is just my point of view). Like Simon said, if sandwiches or small food products could be “suspended” in this way, it would be more beneficial for the society and worth almost the same cost.
It isn’t quite a new dilemma for me whether to give a homeless person food or a hot drink instead of money that he may be spend on drugs or even a slot machine. The thought of giving the person a piece of my snack or buying him something along with my shopping crossed my mind many times. However, I never quite fought the shyness to ask whether he/she would welcome such help. Of course, I need not ask in advance, but I fear hitting upon a person that would not appreciate the little I could afford to share with him. The problem of many is having negative previous experiences with homeless people. I heard of five-plus cases of those who become rude when you reject to give them money. However, it is a problem of nothing else but trust. You know the value/cost of the money earned by yourself but on the other hand, you accept the argument that such people are usually caught in a vicious circle and it is very hard for them to find a normal job or even a decent accommodation which would provide them basic hygiene facilities and security. You know it would be right to help the person but you may question his responsibility or even honesty.
ReplyDeleteBack to the question: Why haven’t I just bought the ten rolls and give them to the homeless person in front of the store? Maybe I speculated if it would be a real help to him in case he needed to save money to buy something more expensive he needed or he had to pay back debts in order to start from the beginning. They are a lot of ‘if’s, and I can also see it from their perspective. They also need freedom, they deserve it, too, as anyone else. Why should we keep a close eye on where they spend money? True, I’m not talking about those who are falling deep into depts or ruin their families due to irresponsibility. I think that a hot drink in a local stand would lift the moods of the people that are excluded from society. Such an act of kindness may grow into an exceptional experience of compassion for both parties. However, again, donating a suspended coffee (to a person you may never see) seems too impersonal to me.
Why didn’t I give him the roll? Maybe I feared the personal contact in fact. However, this is exactly the thing that can enrich you – to get to know the person, hear his story. Luckily, I have experiences talking to some homeless people and I am quite proud of them. In fact, I feel happy to have learnt something interesting, new to me. And I think such experience, or knowledge at least, would help many people to dispose of negative prejudices about the homeless since those are often caused by ignorance.
To get back to the main point: I found the idea of donating a suspended coffee inspiring; however, I think it reduces the personal experience of goodwill. Moreover, this system omits the possibility to apply individual preferences of the recipient. Maybe I seem to contradict a little with the notion that everyone deserves freedom, to some extent, but I think that just is not achieved under the rule first come, first served, which would most likely be the case.
Last but not least - I just cannot skip this point - I think that though the system introduced in the article certainly is nice, it encourages the consumption of coffee and profit of the firms. I do not want to attack those facts directly now, I just want to remind us, people of the West, that there is very high inefficiency in the function of our society. There are resources (from large canteens, restaurants to agriculture producers to supermarkets) where large amounts of edible food is wasted or simply thrown away. If the responsible figures had a bit of will, if we, consumers and activists, could convince them, those resources could be distributed to the poor. This could work at larger scale (help more people), long-term and at no significant costs to the authorities. Let us think again, as good as the act of buying a suspended coffee or whatever is, why do regular people spend their money that had been earned hard while big food distributors and prominent restaurants do not show the least concern for this matter?
Though the idea of offering pre-paid coffee products to the homeless people and those in need might seem like a wonderful one initially, I don’t believe much thought is put as to whether the good Samaritan deed really is the best, most sound choice. A common excuse for not handing out a couple of dimes is the supposition that the homeless will undeniably spend the money on booze and drugs. Enter “suspended coffee” – providing an opportunity to help the poor fellows for those, who truly wish to, whilst eradicating any fears of having them allocate their income rather inefficiently. On paper the concept might get a pass. In practice, however, I doubt its usefulness. The major problem that I see with this idea isn’t the fact that people are supplying the homeless with coffee – quite arguably not an appropriate drink, considering its somewhat low nutritional value coupled with its addictive nature, but the fact that they are doing so using a middle-man, in this case the retailer. I have no problem with people preparing a coffee at home, or even better, a sandwich and bringing it along the way to work to share it with the homeless, but ordering a suspended coffee at the retailer, or in the worst case scenario – the overcharging Starbucks venues, to me seems like an even goofier idea than straight-up giving the homeless person cash instead. Not only do you spend probably as much as up to 80% of the coffee’s price on, essentially, a luxurious plastic cup, but the cash also goes to fuel their agenda rather than being utilized to aid the homeless people, which is what the concept of “suspended coffee” purports to be.
ReplyDeleteIn order to put Starbucks’ two-faced response to the test and further promote the spread of the “suspended coffee” idea, I think that the retailers should simply introduce it as a new menu item, designated specifically for homeless people, and significantly reduce its price in such way that it only reflects the actual cost of the necessary ingredients, and perhaps a tiny further amount for the customer service.