On average in the bay area, a full time "beggar" made something like 50K a year in donations (this was a pre-resection statistic, so I'm sure it's come down quite a bit.)

Honestly, this is a common discussion about San Francisco, so I project many of the discussions I've had about that city to New York. I was hoping for a little latitude by extending my experience on the west coast to New York, since both cities share many commonalities. Maybe I was utterly wrong in doing that.

Also, I agree, often the homeless do suffer some form of mental illness. I wouldn't dare pretend otherwise. But what are the rich of a city supposed to do about that? Apprehend them against their own will and put them in a institution? I'll fall back to SF, because that's where I've spent my time following the politics. If you're mentally ill, but not a danger to society, the only thing we do is provide everything you need to survive (housing, food, ER service). Now, how, as a rich person, are you supposed to do more? No medical professional is going to recommend taking them by force unless they are a danger to them or themselves.

I know it sounds cold, but other then protecting their life, what the hell more are you supposed to do? As far as "economic inequity" goes the mentally ill are not part of the discussion, because they're a complete different social problem. Not one that we handle very well, and one I hope we continue to work on as hard as we can, but I hope you can acknowledge it is still different.

I tried to steer clear of the mentally ill discussion for that reason.

I completely agree about the fact that current programs don't get people off the street. It bugs me. I don't think it's good for the people or the city as a whole. I know that San Francisco has man programs designed to help get people off the street (more then just providing the essentials for them). Yet, in general, those programs are pretty spectacular failures. I'm glad we try though, and I'm willing to be patient with those types of programs, especially for the mentally ill, because I have no idea how to do it better.

I guess my point with the "shambles" comment is, if they have a $2000+ outfit, they either (a) saved for it and spent money the way they thought would be most satisfying. In which case, how is that any different from getting the extras on your ford focus? or (b) they're very wealthy, in which case, they're going to be helping supply the lion share of the tax money that provides for the people on the street. As far as I'm concerned, in most cases, there is no need to condemn either group for how they spend their money.

I'm not suggesting that we take money out of the system, or that more can't be done. I'm just suggesting that taking a picture of some young girls in expensive clothes next to someone on the street in dirty clothes and acting like it's some brilliant juxtaposition is dumb. We're dealing with an unbelievable complex social issue, and this picture is silly in it's simplicity, not profound.