
Homeless as Wi-Fi Transmitters Creates a Stir in Austin - mjfern
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/technology/homeless-as-wi-fi-transmitters-creates-a-stir-in-austin.html?hp&gwh=D5CEFC5EA071E76F26E58765CC8B2793
======
ChrisNorstrom
_"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.

~~~
pessimizer
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?

~~~
Osiris
_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.

~~~
kurtvarner
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.

~~~
olalonde
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.

~~~
pessimizer
According to that argument, if your current salary is zero, a single cent
would be adequate to get you to do anything.

~~~
olalonde
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.

~~~
pessimizer
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.

~~~
olalonde
Obviously homeless people will disagree with you since they cannot find a job
at minimum wage and help is just not coming to them.

------
untog
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.

------
cobychapple
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!

~~~
kanamekun
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.

~~~
draggnar
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.

------
siculars
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.”

~~~
mindslight
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.

------
akoumjian
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.

------
jtchang
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.

------
neworbit
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.

~~~
TeMPOraL
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.

------
dhughes
I don't see a problem with giving homeless people jobs it seems nobody else
will.

------
larrys
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.

------
senthilnayagam
I have seen homeless people in manhattan becoming human billboards for the
bicycle rentals and all small businesses who are not on 5th avenue.

So this is not new in America

what if they paid minimum wages? give BHH a chance to explain their stand.

------
phil
So, $2.50/hr then.

~~~
maxharris
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.

~~~
enjo
Does it? Or does it simply raise the floor? I'm not aware of many businesses
who go out of their way to hire excess capacity, no matter what it costs.

~~~
jamiequint
Yes, its called latent/induced demand:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand>

