The first time I read about the homeless being used as 4G hotspots at this past month’s SXSW, I was a little disgusted.
Using the homeless as a 4G hotspot? How sick is that?
As I read it a second time, my reaction was quite the opposite.
Helping out the homeless in a practical way? How great is that?
So now that I’ve gone over this twice, I’m not sure what to think about this endeavor.
What do you think?
Homeless Hotspots
Apparently these hotspots stirred up a bit of controversy at SXSW.
Here are some of the Tweets posted by Buzzfeed:
The idea behind the initiative by BBH New York, in partnership with Front Steps Shelter, was to bring street newspapers into the digital age. Like a kid on the corner selling newspapers fresh of the press, these carefully selected homeless would be selling unlimited wifi for a suggested donation of $2 for every 15 minutes. As for where the money goes? To the homeless “Hotspot Manager” and to no one else.
The most interesting part of this all, is the reaction to the common man. The people attending the event. Those who are not homeless. Those that have the technology, time and money to Tweet and Tumble pictures on the go (there’s some thick irony here). Of these 15 Hotspot Managers, no one has asked them how they feel about it. The fact they’re doing it speaks volumes in the situation.
I also find it curious how we’ll suck down our coffee that was harvested by a ten-year old slave, but have a problem with 15 homeless people who took initiative, pass through the screening process, and willfully took to the streets during SXSW.
What do you think?
[via Homeless Hotspots, Buzzfeed & Geek O System]
April says
My opinion from what I see here without further research… they are working. They are trying to provide for themselves. They can choose not to do this, but they chose to anyway. They aren’t ashamed and they aren’t just begging, they are trying. I say good for them!
George says
I Agree, I think its a great way for the general “geek” public to interface with a different group of people…
Eric Dye says
Agreed.
Jamie O'Donoghue says
The people were paid $20 a day. Let’s assume that it was an 8 hour day…… That’s $2.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage.
Did they have to accept those provisions? No. but it looks a lot like these people were taken advantage of because of their current situations.
If they were going to be helped and hired they should have at least been given a fair market wage…..
Eric Dye says
That may have been a base, but they were paid by individuals based on a ‘recommended’ amount for a few minutes of online time. There was plenty of potential for these guys to make more. I don’t know as though this was designed for full, gainful employment, as it was to lend a hand in a practical way. Moreover, waitress’ don’t make minimum wage, because they are paid via tips.
Jamie O'Donoghue says
If a waiter or waitress’ pay hasn’t at least met the minimum wage standard at the end of their shift, the restaurant by law have to supplement the income.
Look I’m no lover of the minimum wage system. In my opinion it discourages free markets but in we have it our society so we must consider the implications of a company looking at a homeless person and saying “forget the law, these people will be happy with $20”.
It’s degrading to the individual within the boundaries of the law that we have created.
Eric Dye says
True story. However, assuming these guys went home with only $20 after working all day is pure speculation. Also, if a restaurant has to supplement too often, because the waitress isn’t getting tips for doing a poor job, she gets fired.
I’m curious, what would you say to these guys: http://homelesshotspots.org/#/clarence
Jamie O'Donoghue says
You’re right it is pure speculation so that’s a fair point. I also can’t give an informed opinion about an organization just by their website. It’s only one side of the story.
Again the main issue I have a problem with is that the organization looked at these homeless people and whether knowingly or unknowingly thought that the law didn’t apply to them because they are homeless.
And then claimed that they were helping……
In my opinion I just don’t see it that way. Helping a homeless person would probably look more realistic by helping them get their lives back together. Is $20 doing that? I don’t believe so.
Eric Dye says
Good points, Jamie. I’m not completely persuaded, but you certainly bring up enough rockin’ point it’s hard to be on-board with a project like this. You’ve added a lot of value to this discussion!
Jamie O'Donoghue says
Yeah, we aren’t going to solve the homeless issue on church mag as much as we’d like to 🙂
I’m a regular reader.
Keep up the great work here.
Eric Dye says
Thanks, Jamie! You’re awesome!