Certainly from a point of sentiment and my personal observation - the overall premise of this story is true. However, this article fails miserable in making the very easy case. Out of the gate the writer gives a fair warning that they are going to provide a weak argument for a good case - by describing the proceeds of panhandling as earnings. The writer uses anecdotes that (possibly after massive editing) seem almost inane. The article begins with the cheeseburger anecdote and ends with a quote from Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, the oil industry funded "think" tank.. Midships, for a little extra confusion, Greve mentions that the figures "probably" don't include remittances of foreign nationals back home to their families; thereby conflating charity and an economic reality. It seems that this article set out to prove a point that is pretty much a universal observation that didn't need statistical analysis. The quotes from Independent Sector are hearsay analysis - such as "2 or 3 times more" 2 or 3 times represents a 50% difference. Statistically, this terminology is laughable, as is uttering the word "probably" in a seemingly declarative article about facts. It is out of a sense of 'charity' that I end the review here.