Is there an element of exploitation here from the media? It looks like Leo was on the Today show. I recall the homeless guy with a "radio voice" also got the same treatment, and ultimately, they both weren't able to normalize back into society.
The idea that homelessness is just a financial problem and that if we come up with a ad-impression friendly narrative, then we can just solve it via a little fame and a little elbow grease is crazy. I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. Larger, more important, narratives were conveniently ignored.
Meanwhile, the larger narrative on how the US's private healthcare system means huge barriers to entry and especially for mental health issues, gets swept under the rug. Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. A little money and fame aren't going to change that. The whole article seems to skirt around the obvious mental health issues here. Its just incredible we can just pretend they don't exist and come up with ham-handed rationalizations on why Leo doesn't want a bank account. Yeah, its because he's mentally ill and is unable to functional in a normal way.
> Is there an element of exploitation here from the media?
Media outlets rationalize this with the, probably justified, view that both parties, as well as society at large are benefiting.
Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story. You can't blame them for not knowing that he wouldn't be able to take the money.
As for society, we get to have this conversation and some people hopefully get a more nuanced understanding of the problem of homelessness.
You seem to want to change the narrative towards the healthcare system and it's "huge barrier to entry" by saying it's getting swept under the rug. That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
How would it look if they started with Leo still being homeless, then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care? People would accuse them of having an agenda, and rightfully so.
>Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story.
In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better.
>As for society, we get to have this conversation
What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't.
>That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me.
>then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care?
Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
> Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention.
That's a stretch. He probably wouldn't have broken a thousand.
> What conversation exactly?
The conversation you and I are having, right now. Multiply that by all the people who have followed this story.
> most of which look like mental illness to me.
You want to make Leo the poster boy for mental illness?
> Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account.
They DID ask that question. That you didn't like the answer they got doesn't mean they were being neglectful.
> Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
Money he never would have had in the first place without the free advertising from all the media coverage. There's no irony here. There's not as much cynicism and neglect and opportunism here as you are so eager to point out.
You can take the entire story at face value here. A smart hacker thought he could do some good by teaching a homeless man he saw every day a useful, high-demand skill. The homeless man was receptive but as it turned out, money isn't the solution.
You're making the argument that it's health care that he needs. Maybe you're right. Maybe you should go over there and offer Leo health care. It would be a damn sight better than what you're doing now, accusing well-meaning people who are taking action of neglect and opportunism because they're not jumping to the same conclusions you are. They're not warping the narrative, you are.
> The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable
Not obvious. Until you get his SSN or otherwise do a background check, you have no idea what's in his past, or how that $10K compares to his legal obligations. There is an unaddressed moral question for society in whether a person in a difficult situation has an implicit right to both a non-zero personal net worth and anonymity.
Yes. Slavery, indentures, and other conditions of involuntary servitude have been outlawed by constitutional amendment for a long time, now.
In the particular instance where a parent is obligated to labor for the benefit of a child (possibly even one that is a true genetic descendant) for a term of 18 years, however, the government has seen fit to ignore the legal niceties in order to reduce its own welfare burden for supporting single parents.
In other words, the state ignores its own rule because following it would be expensive, the victims are too poor to fight it, and no one likes deadbeat parents enough to fight it for them. Expedience!
Child support is a political beehive, vigorously defended by partisans on either side of the issue. Approach it with any intent, or even none at all, and you could get swarmed and stung just for being nearby. So I say, with a megaphone from a long way away, that whether it is right or wrong, child support laws do appear to be inconsistent with foundation law.
I consider it unlikely that is why Leo does not want his own bank account. It may be a contributing factor, but I think it far more likely that he does not believe banks to be any more trustworthy than the street thugs that steal anything even remotely of value from him and his cohort. Banking may have been a significant contributing factor in his exit from home-having society. In some ways, the bank simply allows different people to take your money.
As long as it is not attached to him directly, perhaps he feels like it is harder for anyone to steal the idea of him having $10000? If he takes possession, it will get spent or stolen, and then it would be gone, along with the idea of having it. But who could really know for sure from an article that features precious little commentary from its main subject? It may be worth more to him as a floor on his self-worth ("Well, I'm worth at least $10000.") than as cash in hand.
Yet, should child support obligations make it impossible for somebody to participate in society (and earn money)?
There is an optimum point here, but people seem unable to arguee for anything that is not extreme. And that seems to be a problem with our communication in general, not restricted to this one issue.
Exactly. I think there should be some level (above $10K) at which people can still operate under the radar, but around $30-50K the question becomes considerably less clear.
People who lack capacity to make choices often only lack capacity for a narrow part of their life. Thus, they may not be able to make choices about housing bt fine about everything else.
This is written into English law in the Mental Capacity Act. There was a parliamentary report ("The Cornwall Report") which covered some abuse and some people who had their liberty unreasonably restricted. Importantly people are allowed to make unwise choices if they have the capacity to make that choice and you should not stop them even if you have their best interests at heart.
This is tricky to sort out when working with people with limited capacity and there's some discussion about people not checking that someone actually does have capacity to make choices.
I've gone through a bunch reviews in the Google play store. 100% of them rated 5* for his inspiration effort. 0% rated it 5* because the app is useful. In fact many commenters say outright they have no intention to use the app and they only buy it for support.
This is not to be critical of Leo. By publishing the app and making the the promotion website and video he is ahead of even many professional developers. I'm more annoyed by the tech hype and the media narrative. The idea is any kid can write a mobile app and solve some of the world biggest problem just like that. Together they create some myth that disappoints if you really look into the detail.
> Specifically, what discrete banking options should be available if someone is homeless, owes child support, and maybe has open warrants someplace.
I used to publish a street paper and have been trying to solve this problem for the past six years. Street papers are theoretically great because they solve many of the problems associated with homelessness. However, their efficacy is being cut because more and more people don't carry cash. Unfortunately, to take part in a cash free economy, you need things like a bank account, credit, or a device.
Another problem was cash management. We would launch an issue and out vendors would start selling. Then, after four hours, they might have made $80. This was problematic because some of the problems that lead to homelessness can usually be exacerbated by a sudden surge of cash.
In my experience, paranoia and/or fear of the system is the biggest barrier to discrete banking. Homeless people are disproportionately affected by laws banning camping in public parks, or that 'close' public parks at 11pm. When society continuously passes laws making it harder for you to live, it doesn't take long before it's hard to trust society. Add in schizophrenia (which is an epidemic amongst homeless populations), and banking is very hard.
Some of the ideas we came up with include:
- selling ads to cover 100% of the magazine's cost, thn 'selling' the paper to vendors for $1 a copy. We'd hold this amount collected in our bank account and hand it out on request. We abandoned this idea because it felt too much like enabling addictive behaviours.
- building a new payment card system. If you buy a magazine, you would put cash onto a vendor's card. Then, we'd have a list of merchants (ie - grocery stores, landlords) who would accept it. Not only is this idea insanely difficult to pull off, but it attacks dignity. A loss of dignity is a cause of continuing homelessness.
This entire question is complex and if you explore it deeply enough, you quickly run up against money laundering/banking regulations. But, if we can solve it, we can solve a huge problem.
Consider social assistance cheques. If you don't have a bank account, you have to use cheque cashing services instead. Cheque cashing companies charge a large premium to cash cheques. In the case of government cheques, there is virtually no risk other than counterfeiting.
Cash in a safety deposit box, generally. Lots easier than opening a bank account. Take out what you need.
Also Patrick could put the money onto a debit gift card.
As I wrote above, there are larger issues here. If Leo can't handle this money, in any form, then he'll need a caretaker. Be that a relative, social services, friend, etc.
There are strict rules around things like Green Dot prepaid cards too, not to mention the personal risk associated with having possessions of any value on the street.
Safety deposit box is not a bad idea. But I can't even imagine the stress and anxiety of carrying around 10 grand on a gift card when you are homeless.
>I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted.
This is the beginning and the end of the story. All you need to add for a complete understanding is that change was avoided on all sides. The status quo is, as always, self-preserving. Crucially this includes unchanging moral certainty for the housewives, as well as unchanging poverty for Leo and unchanging profit for the media/various related industries. The circle of life continues.
Of course it is! Much like how the only species that last are the ones that reproduce, any lasting system has trended towards the solution that is stable. The systems that didn't trend towards stable probably fell apart.
It wouldn't be the status quo if it wasn't self-preserving.
The interesting thing here is that we've demonstrated that the reason the status quo is self-preserving in this case is not simply a lack of access to marketable skills on the part of the poor.
You don't think I make this stuff my myself do you? ;)
I do wonder sometimes if his stuff is deep insight or raving mania. His basic point about "the system" just being a sum of the force vectors representing everyones desire for a stable self is pretty correct I think. A lot of stuff certainly makes sense through that lens, but I suppose that isn't the best heuristic for truth.
Even in a city like Stockholm (with a very strong social health system), there are homeless that might not fit in well with society -- granted the social net is much better.
I've only seen one or two in my brief winter visits, but my last trip a couple of weeks ago, there was a "tent city" under one of the bridges near Gamla Stan as well as assorted out of the way individuals (camped out near buildings) in Normmalm/Kungsholmen. With nice weather, I did a lot more walking/exploring this last trip.
> I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives
That comment is as narrow minded as the people that yell at homeless people to "stop being lazy and get a job".
This story has the possibility to change perceptions about homeless people and the challenges they face living in our society.
Setting up a new bank account is a pain in the ass (at any bank I've every used). Finding a reasonable place to live can be stressful as well. If you really think about it, the things we do as part of our life can be very frustrating or stressful, and it's even worse if you don't have friends or any kind of support network to help or give advice.
The idea that homelessness is just a financial problem and that if we come up with a ad-impression friendly narrative, then we can just solve it via a little fame and a little elbow grease is crazy. I guess the system got what it wanted: the Today show got its feel good story for overfed housewives and Today show advertisers got the eyeballs they wanted. Larger, more important, narratives were conveniently ignored.
Meanwhile, the larger narrative on how the US's private healthcare system means huge barriers to entry and especially for mental health issues, gets swept under the rug. Leo doesn't want a bank account for non-rational reasons. A little money and fame aren't going to change that. The whole article seems to skirt around the obvious mental health issues here. Its just incredible we can just pretend they don't exist and come up with ham-handed rationalizations on why Leo doesn't want a bank account. Yeah, its because he's mentally ill and is unable to functional in a normal way.