I would say that 3 tends to be better than 4. This is because it allows greater agency and self-determination to the people you help, which in turn means a greater improvement to their life.
The only downsides I can see are (1) a soup kitchen may become a place for social networks to be established, which is also a benefit for those helped, and (2) the food-to-money ratio may be greater if a soup kitchen can buy the food in bulk (though then one might think about setting up systems where poor people can buy-in-bulk together).
As for 2, this option is actually feasible and the best of all four you have listed. It may not be possible to find a job of the same productivity as the average currently employed person, but you don't have to. As long as the productivity is positive (no matter how small), you get a benefit to society. And, obviously, the benefit to those you help by giving them a job is many orders of magnitudes higher than if you just gave them money, let alone just giving them food.
I think it's okay that, as the donor, you want some reassurance that they won't spend all your money on drugs. They have a choice to not accept your donation.
Ideally it would be a combination of money and food.
You don't need reassurances about how the money will be used. Part of it may be used for drugs. But if a drug user is self-destructive enough to buy only drugs and no food, he or she would probably just take an overdose anyway.
As a case in point, Norway's social safety net provides a living wage to anyone who can't provide for themselves. This involves a lot of drug users. They do end up spending some of the money on drugs, but at least they don't starve or freeze to death. I think this is a tradeoff that's worth it. You both save the effort of micromanaging and provide some dignity to people who have too little of it. If someone wants to be self-destructive, they will be regardless of the circumstances.
It's easy for the productivity of a job to be negative. Transport costs, management costs, opportunity cost because even a jobless person can be productive.
Comments
I would say that 3 tends to be better than 4. This is because it allows greater agency and self-determination to the people you help, which in turn means a greater improvement to their life.
The only downsides I can see are (1) a soup kitchen may become a place for social networks to be established, which is also a benefit for those helped, and (2) the food-to-money ratio may be greater if a soup kitchen can buy the food in bulk (though then one might think about setting up systems where poor people can buy-in-bulk together).
As for 2, this option is actually feasible and the best of all four you have listed. It may not be possible to find a job of the same productivity as the average currently employed person, but you don't have to. As long as the productivity is positive (no matter how small), you get a benefit to society. And, obviously, the benefit to those you help by giving them a job is many orders of magnitudes higher than if you just gave them money, let alone just giving them food.
I think it's okay that, as the donor, you want some reassurance that they won't spend all your money on drugs. They have a choice to not accept your donation.
Ideally it would be a combination of money and food.
You don't need reassurances about how the money will be used. Part of it may be used for drugs. But if a drug user is self-destructive enough to buy only drugs and no food, he or she would probably just take an overdose anyway.
As a case in point, Norway's social safety net provides a living wage to anyone who can't provide for themselves. This involves a lot of drug users. They do end up spending some of the money on drugs, but at least they don't starve or freeze to death. I think this is a tradeoff that's worth it. You both save the effort of micromanaging and provide some dignity to people who have too little of it. If someone wants to be self-destructive, they will be regardless of the circumstances.
It's easy for the productivity of a job to be negative. Transport costs, management costs, opportunity cost because even a jobless person can be productive.