I would rather make $2.50 in an hour than $0.00. This is precisely why minimum wage laws are so immoral: they take people that are employable at the market wage and render them unemployable.
The article annoys me a little bit because of the use of terms like "scrambling to explain itself". I don't think that's the case at all.
To be clear: it was organised with the the guy that runs the shelter. The homeless people themselves seem more than happy to do it. So who is complaining, exactly? People that decided to be outraged on behalf of homeless people? If the objection is that we are treating humans like objects then I have news for you- that is not even slightly new. Have you ever stopped to think how dehumanizing a department named "Human Resources" actually is?
On one of my more adventurous (and, admittedly, drunken) evenings I ended up sitting down with a group of homeless people on a street in New York. It was fascinating for a huge number of reasons (that I'll skip past for brevity) but one thing that really struck me was how ignored I was. When I initially sat down I imagined that people would be staring at me because I was well-dressed and well presented in a group of homeless people. But no-one even looked down to notice.
So even if it does nothing else, this project gets people approaching a homeless person, talking to them, making a business transaction just like 'normal' people... I imagine that will be a very welcome change for the wifi carriers, and one that might make them feel a little more integrated.
The gilded elite that trapse around SXSW need to get off their high horses and appreciate a persons position that is not their own. The truth of it is they would rather not come face to face with the homeless which forces them to think about those still waiting for the elevator to the ivory tower. It's much cleaner to tweet their concern and feel good about their twactivism.
“Everyone thinks I’m getting the rough end of the stick, but I don’t feel that,” Mr. Jones said. “I love talking to people and it’s a job. An honest day of work and pay.”
The twactivists might have a leg to stand on if this had a chance of turning into a long-term phenomenon, or more importantly, internet access was actually scarce. Need a wireless hotspot with 4G backhaul? Get out your phone, turn on 4G, turn on wifi AP - no homeless people exploited, or more importantly, thought about. It seems like BBH's goals must have been to raise awareness and give homeless people a way to participate in SXSW, and we just can't have that.
The real insult here is that other people seem to think they can speak for these particular homeless. I see no reference in the article to the people working this job that they were insulted by it, felt demeaned, or interviews from other homeless people that turned it down.
"hit a nerve among many who said that turning down-and-out people into wireless towers was exploitative and discomfiting"
Ok. I think I've got Aspergers because I cannot believe I just read that.
Giving homeless people a temporary job, money, hope, and making others aware of their situation is exploitative? Then why don't these warm hearted humanitarians against exploitation do something about it?! I don't see them making a difference or a change.
As someone who actually donates money to homeless on streets and intersections regularly. I can't help but feel really extremely angry at that statement. I bet you the same people who find this "exploitative & discomforting" are the same people who never donate money to the homeless in the first place. Let alone actually stop to talk to them, listen to their story, and try to understand their situation.
"$20/day is exploitation"
THEY ARE FUCKING HOMELESS. They have no home. They live on the streets. And you're worrying about them getting minimum wage? They're worried about staying alive. These aren't people who need a union and a minimum wage law to protect their interests. These are people who are at the very end of their rope who are begging other human beings for money so they can eat. Getting $20 a day for walking around with a wireless transmitter doesn't sound discomforting. What does sound discomforting is hanging out at polluted intersections breathing carcinogenic car fumes all day while baking in the sun with a sign asking for money so you can eat a meal that day and not die. Damn absolutionists.
Their problems (survival) and your problems (minimum wage) are completely different. I'd like to ask these "humanitarians against exploitation" where they were yesterday when those homeless people didn't get $20.
I think your self-diagnosis may have hit somewhere near the truth of the matter, as it is shockingly lacking in empathetic awareness or even common sense.
Rates of serious mental illness and drug use within homeless people are vastly higher than in the general populace[1], and as such, suggesting that they become mobile transmitters is "taking the fucking piss", along the lines of eating Irish children[2]. Do you seriously think that people with already fractured notions about 'invisible forces // aliens // schizophrenic delusions' are [b]not[/b] going to see this as some kind of conspiracy and/or be terrified of it? Do you really think it would help them [b]at all[/b]?
A mature discussion would revolve around the stunning statistics regarding homelessness and illness [both mental illness and chemical dependencies] within the United States, the lack of will power to solve said issues, and the quite frankly barbaric state of health care in general.
But no: Charity works so wonderfully well, let's stick with that model. You know, like Dickens suggested[3].
[3] Hint: Dickens was satirising the Charity racket in books such as Oliver Twist in many ways ~ the Victorian model of charity is nothing more than ethical tourism, and solves nothing.
What 75% or so (according to your article) who aren't mentally ill? Also, how many of those mentally ill suffer from paranoia in the first place. After all, mental illness takes many forms.
Is this different from hiring someone to spin a sign (which I've heard nary a peep about)?
Please do share, which one of those people do you feel is incapable of making decisions because of mental illness/drugs ? Did you talk to one of them about invisible forces and aliens ? Don't you think that people doing this might realize it's not in their interest to put a logo on a schizophrenic person ?
Or are you just uncomfortable with what these people are doing and have no problem shitting on a option that was given to them. I'm sure if you send them job offers they will drop the wifi thing in a second - and it should be really easy to find them. Or are you going to shit over people doing this so they lose this opportunity, along with anyone in the future, because of the public backlash. God I hate internet people.
So we should deny these people (and never forget they are people) a relatively safe way to make more money than they otherwise would simply because it makes you feel ooky inside?
As somebody who was homeless (not the couchsurfing type, but the sleeping under bridges type), I think it could very well be exploitative depending on how much labor is involved and what profit is made from them. I'm not sure what you think minimum wage is for, but I think that keeping poverty from becoming a profit center is one of those things.
If people weren't available to work for less than minimum wage "willingly" there wouldn't be a need for it.
If they retain all of the profit, then I'm all for it.
Have you lost your bet?
edit: what if they were being paid $20 a day for being tables, or coatracks? Would it be exploitative yet?
You're right. I'm sorry. It IS exploitative. We should take away their wireless transmitters and all the money they made from donations and services, stop paying them $20/day and go back to not giving a fuck about them like we did before we read the article.
Just saying: If I was homeless, and someone paid me $20/day + all tips and donations to hold onto a wireless transmitter. I would be ecstatic.
The dichotomy here isn't between "Be a Wi-Fi antenna" or "Be a respectable middle-class office worker"; it's "Be a Wi-Fi antenna" or "Be a homeless person without the Wi-Fi antenna income".
what if they were being paid $20 a day for being tables
Actually, people that wait tables in most states make less than $3/hr base pay, which is about $20 a day. So yes, we already have people that make $20/day base pay + tips.
The article also states that they were allowed to accept donations, so the $20 number is probably quite low and I suspect they came away with quite a big more than that for each day's work. Minimum wage is about $60/day, depending on where you live.
I think you missed his point with that comment. It's not about minimum wage, rather, he was making an example of literally paying homeless people to act like furniture.
I would act like furniture for a muliple of my current salary. I bet you would too and I bet the homeless people did the same math (his alternatives are probably less attractive). I feel you are the one who fails to see the larger principle.
Yes, if that's the best alternative. In practice no, because there are better alternatives (i.e. being a Wifi hotspot for 20$/day).
If interpreted broadly (any source of financial support), zero salary means I am literally starving to death soon. I'd do a lot of things before letting myself die. But in practice, the opportunity cost of doing your 1 cent job is just too high, even for desperate people.
You would still die, just after being humiliated and while clutching a penny. It would be a bad decision to do anything for a penny when you were making nothing, and the person who got you do do it would be a bad person. So, as a society, we choose an amount (not a factor of previous earnings) that is minimally acceptable to us, and if that wage is too high to be profitable for anyone, we prefer (and I prefer) that we just help and not profit. That's a social safety net.
Basically you've already conceded that, we're just discussing the amount (to paraphrase something else). I feel it's already been adequately set by law.
> people that wait tables in most states make less than $3/hr base pay, which is about $20 a day
The restaurants are also required to difference between minimum wage and hourly pay + tips if they don't reach minimum wage. Whether that happens or not is another matter.
Hmm. They also get to feel they helped someone, get to talk to people, get told thanks and perhaps greeted with a smile. I'd welcome that too compared to being ignored or worse..
> edit: what if they were being paid $20 a day for being tables, or coatracks? Would it be exploitative yet?
How about this:
In Poland we have people called colloquially "strzałkowi" ('arrow people'), who are working by literally sitting for a whole day holding a big arrow-shaped sign that directs to a bookstore/Subway (restaurant)/whatever. They are just sitting there, whole day, with an arrow, earning laughtable money, most likely as a way for companies to place signs where they usually would not be allowed to. Oh, and they are not even homeless, they're usually students who can't find any better job, because the job market for unqualified labor is kind of saturated. And suddenly, nobody complains about demeaning jobs and exploiting people.
I'd rather walk around with a wireless transmitter any day. Those wi-fi homeless people are at least providing some value to society.
And they couldn't say no because...? Does being homeless automatically mean they have no free will? Granted, I've never been homeless, but I've read first hand accounts of people who fall into that life, then rehabilitate themselves and get jobs, only to willingly fall into homelessness again. As others have said in this thread, homelessness and the causes of it are a complex issue and there is no one answer that is going to apply for every homeless person. But does that mean we should assume no homeless person is capable of recognizing exploitation and politely decline such an opportunity?
BTW: you should look up forniphilia. Some people do willingly become furniture and like it.
After sleeping on it. I woke up feeling terrible about my overly aggressive tone in my comment. For that I'm sorry and also, in the midst of the debate I forgot to congratulate you on overcoming your own homelessness. It's good to hear there was a light at the end of your tunnel. After checking the replies I thought, "omg what have I caused".
I'm overly emotional and overly aggressive. It can be a big positive but here I think it was a negative.
> "These are people who are at the very end of their rope who are begging other human beings for money so they can eat"
This is the standard liberal refrain when it comes to homelessness. As compared to "These are people too lazy to work for themselves and sustain themselves on the handouts of others" argument we hear constantly from conservative camps.
Neither argument hold a lot of water, and in the end the homeless are considerably more complicated than either simplistic argument would suggest. Both arguments are deeply unfair to our society and the homeless, as it ignores the primary issues surrounding homelessness in exchange for simplistic feel-good fuzzies.
You've conveniently ignored the big, giant, planet-sized elephant in the room: substance abuse and mental health in regards to homelessness. Without addressing this it is impossible to know what side of the line this homesless-wireless-tower thing finds itself. There is a large (I'd argue vast majority) of the homeless demographic where this would be absolutely exploitative, and there is a much smaller demographic where this may actually be helpful. Without knowing more details about how this was executed, it's impossible to say what's what.
> "where they were yesterday when those homeless people didn't get $20."
Perhaps, giving $20 to an aid organization.
Directly funding the homeless is an issue that we can argue about till the cows come home and never come remotely close to consensus. Suffice it to say, there are many, many, legitimate concerns about its efficacy, and the money can be just as destructive as it can be rehabilitative.
There is also the notion of whether or not rehabilitation should be a goal when it comes to homelessness.
... All in all, incredibly complicated and without easy answers.
Fun fact: Texas spends the least money on mental health funding of all 50 states.
I live in Austin. We see these people every day on the streets, and some have actually become local celebrities--Leslie, for instance, who just passed away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran . SXSW visitors should face these people, too, in my opinion, because these homeless folks are as much a part of the city as anyone/anything else is. I would venture to say these homeless folks are much more a part of the city than many of the privileged people who work here and choose to commute from the 'burbs, then whine about the homeless population and traffic in the city.
Yes, the wording is bad, these people are not literally hotspots. However, in a state that believes so strongly in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" which, taken in the literal sense, is physically impossible and thus a terrible metaphor, these people could use any help they can get.
If Google makes $500,000 per engineer, it's arguably exploitive for them to pay their engineers $50,000. They can pay a lot more, but don't because they are stingy.
On the other hand, if the Wi-fi operator is making $25 per employee, they just can't pay much more.
Even if you think "exploitation" is bad, it's simply not "exploitation" to offer a reasonable cut of your revenue to an employee.
This also applies to low-cost accommodation. A slum lord renting out crappy rooms for $100 a week is being exploitive if it costs them $10 a week. A Tokyo or Hong Kong style "coffin hotel" offering tiny $100 / week rooms which costs $50 a week is not being "exploitive", it's just servicing people who couldn't otherwise afford accommodation.
All these idiots at SXSW and the New York Times would quite literally rather have these people be homeless and invisible than have someone dream up a job where they could get paid for providing value.
This blows my mind, it's utterly insane.
As for the "exploitation" of paying them $20 a day rather than minimum wage times 8 hours or whatever, this might be the cleanest example ever of why minimum wage laws cause unemployment. The job might pay for itself at $20, and might not at $8.50 * 8 = $70.
As always happens, person A is providing person B with money in exchange for a service. And person C is standing on the sidelines screaming that A is "exploiting" B by not paying them enough money. But person C is doing nothing for person B, and will do nothing for them, and wants nothing more than for person A to go out of business and person B to go back to being invisible.
You've convinced me. I'm going to pay a few homeless people $2 an hour to be my coffee grinders and charge hipsters $20/lb to get their beans ground by a real live failure of the social safety net. And I'm never going to reflect on that, and I'm going to get enraged at people who ask me to.
You're really assuming that you know a lot about person C without ever meeting him/her. It's really easy to do that when you're just making it up.
That's kind of the point. You really have to ask Mr. C what he thinks. It might not be that hard(1) to carry a wifi in your pocket and a nice deal to get an extra $20 for doing it.
Even still, lots of people choose freely to work for less than the minimum wage. They work on startups.
(1) Not as hard as one of these job things anyway.
I know you intend this to somehow be a cutting remark, but you've just described the business model of every hipster feel good activity, from "fair trade" coffee to Project Red.
The bottom line is that the hipster (aka Person C) is not going to employ the homeless. They are not going to fork over money out of their pocket, or create a positive sum job. Because it's hard. Instead they carp on the sidelines about "exploitation" (what does that even mean?) rather than stepping up and doing something themselves.
I really don't get the use of "exploitation" here. I guess the unarticulated concept is that these people are poor, and have no skills, and thus no leverage with which to negotiate for high pay...so it's "exploitative" to pay them anything, or anything below minimum wage, or anything below a software engineer's per diem?
This concept refuses to engage the fact that for a business to stay afloat, one's pay is upper bounded by the profit produced. There is no obvious business model by which a homeless guy with no skills is going to produce $80k/year of value. But there is some possibility that they can produce $20/day, or $7k/year of value.
The hipster will attack a hotspot job as exploitative, they will attack a minimum-wage "McJob" as exploitative, they will even attack the conditions that software engineers at EA voluntarily tolerate as exploitative. In fact, they will do everything other than step up to personally show just how it is possible to profitably employ someone at B's skill level without being "exploitative".
There's a potential for exploitation. People make knee-jerk comments. Maybe in this instance people made a mistake by instantly condemning this stunt.
But make no mistake about it - it's a stunt. These homeless people get a tiny amount of money for a tiny amount of time. There's no real meaningful difference made to their lives. A few people get to meet homeless people and that's great, reduces stigma and promotes social inclusion. But did any of those homeless people go on to get jobs?
In general, when you're dealing with a population with large amounts of mental illness, substance misuse, victims of violence, etc you should be extra careful to provide proper support.
Like I say, this group appears to have done okay, and some of the people complaining are doing it wrong, but they could have done it better.
> you should be extra careful to provide proper support...they could have done it better.
But the thing is that the people criticizing are (a) providing zero direct support to the homeless and (b) not actually going to "do it better". Few of the people offended by this whipped out their own $50 or $500 and said that they'd pay the homeless guy that much to do something else.
That is the point: few of the critics are actually capable of "doing it better" or would be able to withstand the media spotlight that would accompany an attempt.
Again, you have no idea what person C does for the homeless, and profiting from poverty is not a selfless act. You also have no idea whether the homeless person has skills, you are just projecting your stereotypes about the homeless.
Minimum wage laws are an anti-market baseline, just like statutory rape laws. We use them both to set a general civil upper bound on the level of exploitation.
As a single data point to counter your own: I donate monthly and even physically take part in helping feeding of the needy and this makes me feel a little uncomfortable. I can kind of understand your position but I don't share it.
A nice publicity stunt and also provide a valuable service!
Of course this makes the homeless person somewhat of an employee or at least have a leg to stand on to sue if something happened to them in the course of providing the service. They have everything to gain from legal action and really nothing to loose.
Before you downvote, I'm all for providing employment for people who are unfortunate enough to be homeless, however I think the language chosen to describe the project (i.e. using the phrase "I'm Clarence, a 4G hotspot" on the shirts) is really what is causing the problem, as it seems to be what is seen as objectifying and depersonalising the vendor in a way that (as the article suggests) does the opposite of drawing attention to the person and their plight and ignores the wealth divide between the vendors and the customers.
I can't help thinking that the negative PR this is going to inevitably generate could have been completely avoided (and possibly paved the way for more permanent/better/similar experiments on a bigger scale in the future) if a different set of branding/wording had been used from the outset.
For what it's worth, I think that giving people an "honest day of work and pay" is an amazingly positive thing to do. You can't argue with Clarence!
Totally agree with your analysis! The concept was powerful and even empowering... this was a classic error with packaging. The people designing this program chose language which suggested the participants were nothing more than a 4g hotspot. That sort of commoditizing/dehumanizing language was bound to attract negative press.
I would say this job is humanizing. Something that is so intuitively automated such as getting access to a wireless network has gotten a human touch. The idea in general is an interesting type of promotion that does not necessarily have to focus on homeless people.
Nobody wants a handout, whether you are homeless or working for a startup. People want to be rewarded for the work that they do to feel accepted in society.
exactly. clarence is not a 4G hotspot. he's a human being who has a 4G hotspot. therein lies the rub.
i have no doubt that this was done with the best intentions and that the whole idea is a win/win for everyone involved. but the wording IS literally dehumanizing.
Too many damn people on their high horse. What is wrong with everyone?
Do people realize that these individuals are $20 richer than they were before. Someone paid them to do a job. There are much more degrading and dehumanizing things one can do to someone (remember the old slave trade?)...walking around with a tshirt acting as a 4G hotspot does not make the damn list.
People are fussing because the guys are homeless. If the mobile hotspot-wearers had been the usual crowd of imported booth babes, no one would have blinked an eye.
Exactly. In my country nobody complains about students working by sitting for a whole day on the street, holding an arrow pointing to Subway or whatever.
70 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 229 ms ] threadTo be clear: it was organised with the the guy that runs the shelter. The homeless people themselves seem more than happy to do it. So who is complaining, exactly? People that decided to be outraged on behalf of homeless people? If the objection is that we are treating humans like objects then I have news for you- that is not even slightly new. Have you ever stopped to think how dehumanizing a department named "Human Resources" actually is?
On one of my more adventurous (and, admittedly, drunken) evenings I ended up sitting down with a group of homeless people on a street in New York. It was fascinating for a huge number of reasons (that I'll skip past for brevity) but one thing that really struck me was how ignored I was. When I initially sat down I imagined that people would be staring at me because I was well-dressed and well presented in a group of homeless people. But no-one even looked down to notice.
So even if it does nothing else, this project gets people approaching a homeless person, talking to them, making a business transaction just like 'normal' people... I imagine that will be a very welcome change for the wifi carriers, and one that might make them feel a little more integrated.
“Everyone thinks I’m getting the rough end of the stick, but I don’t feel that,” Mr. Jones said. “I love talking to people and it’s a job. An honest day of work and pay.”
Ok. I think I've got Aspergers because I cannot believe I just read that.
Giving homeless people a temporary job, money, hope, and making others aware of their situation is exploitative? Then why don't these warm hearted humanitarians against exploitation do something about it?! I don't see them making a difference or a change.
As someone who actually donates money to homeless on streets and intersections regularly. I can't help but feel really extremely angry at that statement. I bet you the same people who find this "exploitative & discomforting" are the same people who never donate money to the homeless in the first place. Let alone actually stop to talk to them, listen to their story, and try to understand their situation.
"$20/day is exploitation"
THEY ARE FUCKING HOMELESS. They have no home. They live on the streets. And you're worrying about them getting minimum wage? They're worried about staying alive. These aren't people who need a union and a minimum wage law to protect their interests. These are people who are at the very end of their rope who are begging other human beings for money so they can eat. Getting $20 a day for walking around with a wireless transmitter doesn't sound discomforting. What does sound discomforting is hanging out at polluted intersections breathing carcinogenic car fumes all day while baking in the sun with a sign asking for money so you can eat a meal that day and not die. Damn absolutionists.
Their problems (survival) and your problems (minimum wage) are completely different. I'd like to ask these "humanitarians against exploitation" where they were yesterday when those homeless people didn't get $20.
Rates of serious mental illness and drug use within homeless people are vastly higher than in the general populace[1], and as such, suggesting that they become mobile transmitters is "taking the fucking piss", along the lines of eating Irish children[2]. Do you seriously think that people with already fractured notions about 'invisible forces // aliens // schizophrenic delusions' are [b]not[/b] going to see this as some kind of conspiracy and/or be terrified of it? Do you really think it would help them [b]at all[/b]?
A mature discussion would revolve around the stunning statistics regarding homelessness and illness [both mental illness and chemical dependencies] within the United States, the lack of will power to solve said issues, and the quite frankly barbaric state of health care in general.
But no: Charity works so wonderfully well, let's stick with that model. You know, like Dickens suggested[3].
[1]e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050201101738.ht...
[2] Swift
[3] Hint: Dickens was satirising the Charity racket in books such as Oliver Twist in many ways ~ the Victorian model of charity is nothing more than ethical tourism, and solves nothing.
Is this different from hiring someone to spin a sign (which I've heard nary a peep about)?
I don't think so.
Please do share, which one of those people do you feel is incapable of making decisions because of mental illness/drugs ? Did you talk to one of them about invisible forces and aliens ? Don't you think that people doing this might realize it's not in their interest to put a logo on a schizophrenic person ?
Or are you just uncomfortable with what these people are doing and have no problem shitting on a option that was given to them. I'm sure if you send them job offers they will drop the wifi thing in a second - and it should be really easy to find them. Or are you going to shit over people doing this so they lose this opportunity, along with anyone in the future, because of the public backlash. God I hate internet people.
If people weren't available to work for less than minimum wage "willingly" there wouldn't be a need for it.
If they retain all of the profit, then I'm all for it.
Have you lost your bet?
edit: what if they were being paid $20 a day for being tables, or coatracks? Would it be exploitative yet?
Just saying: If I was homeless, and someone paid me $20/day + all tips and donations to hold onto a wireless transmitter. I would be ecstatic.
I'm pretty sure that they say that they would feel a certain way if they were in your position too, and it would be just as speculative.
Which means they deserve a job that makes them feel good about themselves and nurtures them as humans beings.
A lot of people with homes don't have that.
The dichotomy here isn't between "Be a Wi-Fi antenna" or "Be a respectable middle-class office worker"; it's "Be a Wi-Fi antenna" or "Be a homeless person without the Wi-Fi antenna income".
Actually, people that wait tables in most states make less than $3/hr base pay, which is about $20 a day. So yes, we already have people that make $20/day base pay + tips.
The article also states that they were allowed to accept donations, so the $20 number is probably quite low and I suspect they came away with quite a big more than that for each day's work. Minimum wage is about $60/day, depending on where you live.
If interpreted broadly (any source of financial support), zero salary means I am literally starving to death soon. I'd do a lot of things before letting myself die. But in practice, the opportunity cost of doing your 1 cent job is just too high, even for desperate people.
Basically you've already conceded that, we're just discussing the amount (to paraphrase something else). I feel it's already been adequately set by law.
The restaurants are also required to difference between minimum wage and hourly pay + tips if they don't reach minimum wage. Whether that happens or not is another matter.
How about this:
In Poland we have people called colloquially "strzałkowi" ('arrow people'), who are working by literally sitting for a whole day holding a big arrow-shaped sign that directs to a bookstore/Subway (restaurant)/whatever. They are just sitting there, whole day, with an arrow, earning laughtable money, most likely as a way for companies to place signs where they usually would not be allowed to. Oh, and they are not even homeless, they're usually students who can't find any better job, because the job market for unqualified labor is kind of saturated. And suddenly, nobody complains about demeaning jobs and exploiting people.
I'd rather walk around with a wireless transmitter any day. Those wi-fi homeless people are at least providing some value to society.
BTW: you should look up forniphilia. Some people do willingly become furniture and like it.
I'm overly emotional and overly aggressive. It can be a big positive but here I think it was a negative.
This is the standard liberal refrain when it comes to homelessness. As compared to "These are people too lazy to work for themselves and sustain themselves on the handouts of others" argument we hear constantly from conservative camps.
Neither argument hold a lot of water, and in the end the homeless are considerably more complicated than either simplistic argument would suggest. Both arguments are deeply unfair to our society and the homeless, as it ignores the primary issues surrounding homelessness in exchange for simplistic feel-good fuzzies.
You've conveniently ignored the big, giant, planet-sized elephant in the room: substance abuse and mental health in regards to homelessness. Without addressing this it is impossible to know what side of the line this homesless-wireless-tower thing finds itself. There is a large (I'd argue vast majority) of the homeless demographic where this would be absolutely exploitative, and there is a much smaller demographic where this may actually be helpful. Without knowing more details about how this was executed, it's impossible to say what's what.
> "where they were yesterday when those homeless people didn't get $20."
Perhaps, giving $20 to an aid organization.
Directly funding the homeless is an issue that we can argue about till the cows come home and never come remotely close to consensus. Suffice it to say, there are many, many, legitimate concerns about its efficacy, and the money can be just as destructive as it can be rehabilitative.
There is also the notion of whether or not rehabilitation should be a goal when it comes to homelessness.
... All in all, incredibly complicated and without easy answers.
I live in Austin. We see these people every day on the streets, and some have actually become local celebrities--Leslie, for instance, who just passed away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran . SXSW visitors should face these people, too, in my opinion, because these homeless folks are as much a part of the city as anyone/anything else is. I would venture to say these homeless folks are much more a part of the city than many of the privileged people who work here and choose to commute from the 'burbs, then whine about the homeless population and traffic in the city.
Yes, the wording is bad, these people are not literally hotspots. However, in a state that believes so strongly in "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" which, taken in the literal sense, is physically impossible and thus a terrible metaphor, these people could use any help they can get.
On the other hand, if the Wi-fi operator is making $25 per employee, they just can't pay much more.
Even if you think "exploitation" is bad, it's simply not "exploitation" to offer a reasonable cut of your revenue to an employee.
This also applies to low-cost accommodation. A slum lord renting out crappy rooms for $100 a week is being exploitive if it costs them $10 a week. A Tokyo or Hong Kong style "coffin hotel" offering tiny $100 / week rooms which costs $50 a week is not being "exploitive", it's just servicing people who couldn't otherwise afford accommodation.
All these idiots at SXSW and the New York Times would quite literally rather have these people be homeless and invisible than have someone dream up a job where they could get paid for providing value.
This blows my mind, it's utterly insane.
As for the "exploitation" of paying them $20 a day rather than minimum wage times 8 hours or whatever, this might be the cleanest example ever of why minimum wage laws cause unemployment. The job might pay for itself at $20, and might not at $8.50 * 8 = $70.
As always happens, person A is providing person B with money in exchange for a service. And person C is standing on the sidelines screaming that A is "exploiting" B by not paying them enough money. But person C is doing nothing for person B, and will do nothing for them, and wants nothing more than for person A to go out of business and person B to go back to being invisible.
You're really assuming that you know a lot about person C without ever meeting him/her. It's really easy to do that when you're just making it up.
Even still, lots of people choose freely to work for less than the minimum wage. They work on startups.
(1) Not as hard as one of these job things anyway.
The bottom line is that the hipster (aka Person C) is not going to employ the homeless. They are not going to fork over money out of their pocket, or create a positive sum job. Because it's hard. Instead they carp on the sidelines about "exploitation" (what does that even mean?) rather than stepping up and doing something themselves.
I really don't get the use of "exploitation" here. I guess the unarticulated concept is that these people are poor, and have no skills, and thus no leverage with which to negotiate for high pay...so it's "exploitative" to pay them anything, or anything below minimum wage, or anything below a software engineer's per diem?
This concept refuses to engage the fact that for a business to stay afloat, one's pay is upper bounded by the profit produced. There is no obvious business model by which a homeless guy with no skills is going to produce $80k/year of value. But there is some possibility that they can produce $20/day, or $7k/year of value.
The hipster will attack a hotspot job as exploitative, they will attack a minimum-wage "McJob" as exploitative, they will even attack the conditions that software engineers at EA voluntarily tolerate as exploitative. In fact, they will do everything other than step up to personally show just how it is possible to profitably employ someone at B's skill level without being "exploitative".
But make no mistake about it - it's a stunt. These homeless people get a tiny amount of money for a tiny amount of time. There's no real meaningful difference made to their lives. A few people get to meet homeless people and that's great, reduces stigma and promotes social inclusion. But did any of those homeless people go on to get jobs?
In general, when you're dealing with a population with large amounts of mental illness, substance misuse, victims of violence, etc you should be extra careful to provide proper support.
Like I say, this group appears to have done okay, and some of the people complaining are doing it wrong, but they could have done it better.
But the thing is that the people criticizing are (a) providing zero direct support to the homeless and (b) not actually going to "do it better". Few of the people offended by this whipped out their own $50 or $500 and said that they'd pay the homeless guy that much to do something else.
That is the point: few of the critics are actually capable of "doing it better" or would be able to withstand the media spotlight that would accompany an attempt.
I am.
But I did say that many people are too quick to complain. (I appreciate my wording was not good.)
Minimum wage laws are an anti-market baseline, just like statutory rape laws. We use them both to set a general civil upper bound on the level of exploitation.
Of course this makes the homeless person somewhat of an employee or at least have a leg to stand on to sue if something happened to them in the course of providing the service. They have everything to gain from legal action and really nothing to loose.
I can't help thinking that the negative PR this is going to inevitably generate could have been completely avoided (and possibly paved the way for more permanent/better/similar experiments on a bigger scale in the future) if a different set of branding/wording had been used from the outset.
For what it's worth, I think that giving people an "honest day of work and pay" is an amazingly positive thing to do. You can't argue with Clarence!
Nobody wants a handout, whether you are homeless or working for a startup. People want to be rewarded for the work that they do to feel accepted in society.
i have no doubt that this was done with the best intentions and that the whole idea is a win/win for everyone involved. but the wording IS literally dehumanizing.
Do people realize that these individuals are $20 richer than they were before. Someone paid them to do a job. There are much more degrading and dehumanizing things one can do to someone (remember the old slave trade?)...walking around with a tshirt acting as a 4G hotspot does not make the damn list.
So this is not new in America
what if they paid minimum wages? give BHH a chance to explain their stand.