Amsterdam Conscripts Homeless in the War on Cash
bitcoinist.com
bitcoinist.com
Sounds more like they're being asked to fundraise for what I hope is a charity and being paid with benefits in kind than being given freedom from depending on cash.
Yeah, it really is a giant homeless badge: http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/01/contactless-payment-jacket-...
I'd also like to know from someone who has been in that situation, maybe even an addict, what he thinks of the limitation on what he can spend the money on. I guess it's good because people will spend more and it can't fuel an addiction, but it also strips you from some more freedom.
I also wonder if registration is somewhat anonymous with no questions asked for illegals, minors etc.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but you further dehumanize individuals when you use that word to describe their immigration status. Please consider "the undocumented" instead.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but you further dehumanize individuals when you use that word to describe how they're being treated when called their common nickname. Please consider that when you try to force people to use your words to push an agenda, you harm the plight of those you are trying to help.
Further, that video was terrible. Humans create abbreviations and nicknames for tons of things without regard to legal validity. Do you have any other lists of common nicknames we're not allowed to use?
Like can I still call Green Bay Packers fans cheeseheads?
No, because you are a grown up person and you don't need derogatory terms to appear cool or hip.
I'm ok with a substitute example for an acceptable group nickname if you have one on offer.
Still I believe that not every nicknames or abbreviations is a good thing.
Illegal immigrants are criminals, and there's nothing wrong with referring to them as such. You wouldn't refer to someone who breaks into your house as an "undocumented roommate" either.
We've let the political elites divide us and scapegoat the people with the least amount of power.
Even if they are a positive contribution, that just means we should have a good look at immigration procedures, not that we should use misleading euphemisms for lawbreakers.
You're targeting the wrong end of the equation.
I don't care if you're in the country being productive; if you haven't immigrated legally, you're breaking the law and should be deported.
Starve? Die? Or look for any and every opportunity to feed your family?
They don't run the drug war, we do. They don't negotiate trade deals that collapse sustainable farming businesses, we do. They don't exert hegemonic power over the hemisphere, we do. They don't run businesses dependent on cheap displaced, marginalized labor, we do.
Whether you like it or not we are all connected. If you think a "yuuuge golden wall" or more deportation will do anything but shift around the underlying macroeconomic effects and migrant flows: congratulations you've bought the propaganda, hook line and sinker.
That remains to be proven. In most cases that I am familiar with, immigrants without official authorisation (trying to find a compromise way of describing those) but with a job (not all have one) do something that no undocumented person (taking the wider category) wants to do, at least not at that price.
> if you haven't immigrated legally, you're breaking the law and should be deported.
Obligatory reference to the very likely, if not recent, violent past of your own heritage to remind you that things tend to not be that simple.
A solution the council has tried is to provide people with 'proof of homelessness' a badge+lanyard. It's something to check for before giving any money/food, and I believe it's a required possession for certain forms of assistance (soup kitchens, shelters, etc.). However, I've been told by one homeless guy that they are traded away quite quickly to non-homeless beggars as the council will simply replace 'lost' badges.
So it's two sides of the argument. Without some visual identification, people take the mick. Even with it, it causes issues.
It is horribly patronising to tell people what to spend their money on or what jacket to wear.
It feels less offensive to me to do it that way than to have someone ask them how they are going to spend that money.
I've said it before (and was naturally downvoted), but The Netherlands is devolving into a totalitarian society -- not Orwellian, but Huxley-style.
I am all for the consumer convenience aspect of crypto currencies but is it actually being sold as an anti-corruption strategy?
You would have to look no further than ransomware to see that crypto currency just like regular fiat currency can be used in illicit contexts. You might even be able to argue it would become preferable to cash for bribes and corruption since it remove the burden of physically transferring and storing large amounts of cash.
On one fortunate side, at least for now, in the US there are enough people far more vocal than I am about this if removing physical currency were ever genuinely proposed/pushed.
Most people imagine that if they lose their homes, the fate that awaits them is the one they step over each morning on their way to work.
Most people don't have contingency plans, should they find themselves out of a job, and evicted from their residence, with no family or friends to assist with temporary resources.
If I lose my home, and have no savings or sufficient income, the local government will provide accommodation. At short notice, for a single male, that's likely to be a pretty grim hostel, but it exists.
Example: https://www.richmond.gov.uk/if_you_are_homeless
Advice about this from a charity: http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness/gu...
So, following the charity's advice, it might not be true that the local government would provide help -- but that would still be most people's assumption.
Another problem is people coming from different areas, say from North to South, who are just offered a bus ticket back there.
That said, in the UK at least, if you have no income you'll get the same level of cash benefit as anyone else so there is absolutely no need to be begging for money. Those that do either have a dependency problem or are just scamming.
Most homeless people in Amsterdam however have psychological and/ or drug problems that make it impossible for them to live in a home or in a shelter.
Note: the first part wasn't a criticism of the site, just a little bit of reflection. I'm actually impressed they have such some sort of information/guidance available
The proof of homelessness might be an eviction notice? I have no more experience than you in this matter.
Don't know, let's see.. hmmm... maybe because the two often go together ?
Of course, we need to define what we mean by homeless. And I'd like to try to avoid some of the unpleasant and stigmatising messages sometimes made by English councils who are trying to stop people giving money to beggars.
Furthermore I am just answering the loaded question. People assume these things because that's what it looks like to them from the outside.
We need more competitors in the business of issuing money; What are they going to do about all the gold coins ?
What? Where does that happen? Isn't policing a primary responsibility for the government, to be paid from taxes by everyone? Fundraising seems very misplaced for them, no matter how.
For the non-mental-ill homeless...
Why give them money? Serious replies please.
One becomes homeless because one cannot manage money effectively. IMO it's cruel to just give a homeless person a money -- they're going to spend it unwisely again. It's better to provide the essentials (food, water, shelter, basic healthcare, hygiene) then money.
The transition out of homelessness requires a re-learning responsibility. Our solutions to dealing with homeless people should focus on the fact that, fundamentally, homeless people fail in our society. We have to re-educate them so that they are productive and serve as a net positive for society.
Actually it is possible in Amsterdam for people to be forced to get treatment, but that is only if they are a clear danger to themselves or the people around them.
Then at the end you say "homeless people fail in our society. We have to re-educate them so that they are productive and serve as a net positive for society."
I hope this will not be a forced re-education as well? And who will determine what 'our' society is? I find it really scary when a group of people defines society to be 'theirs' and that anybody who does not wish to live along their lines should be re-educated. History provides plenty of examples where this idea was put into practice, most of the time with all the good intentions, and every time the outcome was horrible.
It probably varies significantly by country/city. But the first reference I found [1] suggested that somewhere in the region of 28% of homeless people suffer from a serious metal illness.
Saying "one becomes homeless because one cannot manage money effectively" is also pretty offensive, unless you back it up with some data. I imagine there are a number of economic and other reasons someone might end up on the streets.
To me your comment mostly just comes across as condescending and somewhat arrogant. It would be more interesting to discuss actual data on homelessness...
[1] http://www.mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-men...
By receiving money via the jacket, supervisors can deduct money for food/shelter services. They can teach them how to handle with money.