Homeless as Wi-Fi Transmitters Creates a Stir in Austin

<i>"hit a nerve among many who said that turning down-and-out people into wireless towers was exploitative and discomfiting"</i><p>Ok. I think I've got Aspergers because I cannot believe I just read that.<p>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.<p>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 &#38; 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.<p><i>"$20/day is exploitation"</i><p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.

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.<p>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.<p>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!

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.<p>“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 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.

Too many damn people on their high horse. What is wrong with everyone?<p>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.

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

A nice publicity stunt and also provide a valuable service!<p>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 have seen homeless people in manhattan becoming human billboards for the bicycle rentals and all small businesses who are not on 5th avenue.<p>So this is not new in America<p>what if they paid minimum wages? give BHH a chance to explain their stand.

So, $2.50/hr then.