The most negative finding was that the children receiving the shoes were significantly more likely to agree with the statement that “others should provide for my family’s needs” and less likely to say that “my family should provide for its own needs.”
Simple question, simple answer….YANK under Obambam. Next dumb question?
Shocka.!..
Credit where it’s due, Toms is actually changing its approach to correct the dependence problem. That’s rare. It’s almost as rare as charities commissioning independent, objective results reporting. On both fronts it seems that Toms is doing well. Now, if only I’d heard of their shoes…..
Old saying:
“I once felt sorry for a man
who had no shoes until I met
a man who had no feet.
When we driving is not simple task further sometimes we need made decision make us good or bad driver there is written and praticall test go to higway take longer time to get permitted. That was an example of soon social science or how to talk to stay safe in multigroup with so many differentt beleif culture make life more complicated instead of seeex education children need learn to how to talk. How think before. Talk give rules regulation that when get old or adult age know not face problems we went through. Socual life is more enjoyable fun rather than headach. Now we see how people by look or religion can judged I am jewish prime minster all jjewish vote for me is religion enough makee you lawful person is US gov democratt or republican are jewish first american second is christian angelian in world support israel because dislike to muslim is that saudi arabia can play muslim only welcome society country allowed all is ethic law moral bound of people bindry in order to live in safe heavon less worried get target for ttheeir personal beleifs. Is this matter or let every body run their home differently
This might work, but generally the result is similar to the free Obama phones in the US and the resulting thinking that “the government has to provide my” something or other.
Ok: you might want to stop drinking the bong water when you use Google Translate.
We’ve gotten away from charity (a short-term solution) and replaced it with welfarism (calling that social justice).
Where is the social justice when nothing more can be given out and the demand is ever higher?
I think they have overlooked the joy a little girl would have opening a box and finding a new pair of shoes and knowing that someone somewhere cared enough to send them. She would not know of the immense marketing advantage this meant to Bob’s and the virtuous feelings of the privileged person who knew some kid somewhere would get a new pair of shoes because of their desire for trendy footwear. That little girl puts on the nice clean shoes and smiles. Carry on Bob.
I attended most of middle school (in a decidedly upper-middle class community) in N. CA wearing old shoes that were in tatters. One pair of PF Flyers (revealing my age) were so beat-up that I had to tape the bottoms onto the uppers after they had tore free. I wore that particular pair of shoes for almost two years, and was mocked (today we call it “bullying”) unmercifully for my clownish footwear. All my friends wore brand new addidas athletic shoes. My single, alcoholic, father, working a low-paying retail job didn’t have the resources or motivation to provide adequate clothing for an active middle-schooler. We lived in one of the few apartment buildings in the community where many of the maids and gardeners serving my wealthy friends families lived. We received -0- public assistance in any form. Those tattered shoes, and my dismal childhood provided an unflinching motivation to improve my life. To NEVER send my own children to school in tattered clothing. So I studied, worked my way through college, and started a career that has produced a comfortable living. Had I been GIVEN a pair of designer shoes … would that have FED my motivation or KILLED it ? I can’t say. But sometimes we actually HARM our children by removing all struggles, all motivation. Perhaps Tom’s shoes should make children or their parents actually EARN their “free” shoes ? Charity does not always need to be FREE. There is NOTHING worse than crippling our most basic survival instincts. It often KILLS the SOUL.
Couldn’t agree more. Most people that have to work for everything they get have a sense of value and better appreciate the “gifts” that they get for nothing. The “government owes me” crowd have no sense of value. The examples of this truism are legion.
I find it encouraging that this bit of ethnography was done and then reported as well. For the most part Anthropology as a science has descended into Social Justice Welfarism and Marxist ideology, with a side order of PoMo. To see somebody actually -measure- something is a refreshing change from the usual nonsense.
No surprise that giving away shoes turns out to have a very limited positive social impact, if any at all. The single hardest thing for Lefties to grasp is that human beings do not value things they get for free. It’s just not human nature.
Well done.
When my late father-in-law (sixteen at the time) escaped from Russia with his parents and siblings in 1923 he and his brothers had no shoes. They sailed from Riga to Southampton where some Sally Ann ladies gave them and others shoes. After settling in Manitoba, Canada, everybody took English language classes and went to work for what ever they could find on farms.
They never took a dime of any welfare monies, even during the depression.
Uhh-let me get this right! Next time I’m driving through a blinding Sask. snowstorm and a stranded motorist is freezing to death on a grid road, I won’t give him a ride just in case he thinks he has that coming–and he later on becomes dependent on welfare?? And don’t forget guys–the people who are getting the free shoes are children!!
Now I know why Trudeau is up in the polls!
“Next time I’m driving through a blinding Sask. snowstorm and a stranded motorist is freezing to death on a grid road, I won’t give him a ride just in case he thinks he has that coming–and he later on becomes dependent on welfare??”
See, there is the problem. Leftists like you can’t seem to discern the difference between voluntary participation and state enforced participation. Sure, ostensibly, things start as voluntary with you Leftists and then the next thing, BAM!, the core volunteers become paid union members and what was once a voluntary action becomes statutory legislation enforced on the entire populace at the end of a gun.
By-the-bye, someone who needs a lift out of a blinding snowstorm as often as someone who needs a new pair of shoes(cloth shoes like TOMS wear out very fast) should just be allowed to collect their Darwin Award, especially if they can’t tell the difference between a one-time necessity and the need to be supplied with a perishable everyday garment again and again and again.
Children grow out of shoes and wear them out very quickly, especially in 3rd world countries.
They don’t just need one pair one time.
Blake Mycoskie’s net worth is estimated at $300 million U.S. 2015.
Joe C.
Thank you for reminding us that charity begins at home. Helping our neighbors in need who live right beside us in our own cities and towns. People who we might encounter on our own roadways. That we needn’t meddle in far-away African countries. We needn’t interfere with THEIR cultures, THEIR governments, THEIR people. We needn’t pretend to be the GREAT WHITE HOPE for the poor, poor people of the DARK continent. They can certainly sort out their own affairs. No … there is plenty of need in our own neighborhoods. And thank you for also confusing issues of LIFE and DEATH (imminent freezing to death) … with the need for a pair of new shoes. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison … but I suppose you were simply hoping to “score points” … sorry … you missed the point.
Woa there Oz and Kenji:
This is what the article says: ” TOMS Shoes is one of the most well-known “double bottom line” companies, where generally the two bottom lines include both profit and social impact. For every pair of TOMS Shoes people like you and me purchase at Nordstrom or one of their other retail outlets, TOMS gives a pair of shoes to a needy child in a developing country, 20 million pairs since the founding of the company in 2006. (They also now do something very similar with their line of (not-cheap) sunglasses, providing corrective vision for a visually impaired person in a developing country for every pair purchased.)”
– See more at: http://www.acrosstwoworlds.net/?p=292#sthash.8Wnu4q9P.IB2UYFcw.dpuf
WTF does it say that this is a government program?? And WTF do you get the idea that I’m a leftist??