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.

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".

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Is this different from hiring someone to spin a sign (which I've heard nary a peep about)?

I don't think so.

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.