6 ms·

Homeless as Wi-Fi Transmitters Creates a Stir in Austin

66 points by mjfern 15y ago

dhughes 15y ago
I don't see a problem with giving homeless people jobs it seems nobody else will.
phil 15y ago
So, $2.50/hr then.
- sp332 15y ago
  Is it for the entire day, or just during the times when people are most closely crowded into an area? (I don't really know how SxSW is scheduled.)
  - phil 15y ago
    I figured an 8 hour day, but I don't really know.
- maxharris 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Yes, its called latent/induced demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- amcintyre 15y ago
  Plus tips. Which is about what they pay people that bring me my food at restaurants, if I understand correctly.
- wvenable 15y ago
  $2.50 + tips -- much like your average waiter.
untog 15y ago
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.
siculars 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
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.
ChrisNorstrom 15y ago
"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.
- Inane_Chatter 15y ago
  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]. [1]e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050201101738.htm 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.
larrys 15y ago
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.
cobychapple 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
- mundizzle 15y ago
  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.
jtchang 15y ago
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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
senthilnayagam 15y ago
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.
gregPC 15y ago
Now if we could just strap a rickshaw to them they could be really mobile hot spots.

66 points by mjfern 15y ago

dhughes 15y ago

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

phil 15y ago

So, $2.50/hr then.

sp332 15y ago
Is it for the entire day, or just during the times when people are most closely crowded into an area? (I don't really know how SxSW is scheduled.)
- phil 15y ago
  I figured an 8 hour day, but I don't really know.
maxharris 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Yes, its called latent/induced demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
amcintyre 15y ago
Plus tips. Which is about what they pay people that bring me my food at restaurants, if I understand correctly.
wvenable 15y ago
$2.50 + tips -- much like your average waiter.

untog 15y ago

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.

siculars 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago

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.

ChrisNorstrom 15y ago

"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.

Inane_Chatter 15y ago
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]. [1]e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050201101738.htm 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.

larrys 15y ago

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.

cobychapple 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
mundizzle 15y ago
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.

jtchang 15y ago

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 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

senthilnayagam 15y ago

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.

gregPC 15y ago

Now if we could just strap a rickshaw to them they could be really mobile hot spots.