Item — HN Reader

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?

7 comments

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

> people that wait tables in most states make less than $3/hr base pay, which is about $20 a day

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.

People waiting tables for less than minimum wage is also wrong, and a result of lobbying.

> edit: what if they were being paid $20 a day for being tables, or coatracks? Would it be exploitative yet?

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.

I've done worse for minimum wage.

You're right. I'm sorry. It IS exploitative. We should take away their wireless transmitters and all the money they made from donations and services, stop paying them $20/day and go back to not giving a fuck about them like we did before we read the article.

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.

A lot of people give a fuck about the homeless, you're just projecting. They are human beings with lives, friends, and families.

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.

> They are human beings with lives, friends, and families.

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.

I'm not sure if sub-minimum wage wandering appliance is that job.

Begging on the street certainly isn't.

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".

If you're self-employed, you're not subject to the minimum wage laws.

It's not a job. A more accurate comparison is being paid $20 a day to wear a t-shirt as a sponsorship deal.

If it's that minimal, I'm not against it.

Hmm. They also get to feel they helped someone, get to talk to people, get told thanks and perhaps greeted with a smile. I'd welcome that too compared to being ignored or worse..

And they couldn't say no because...? Does being homeless automatically mean they have no free will? Granted, I've never been homeless, but I've read first hand accounts of people who fall into that life, then rehabilitate themselves and get jobs, only to willingly fall into homelessness again. As others have said in this thread, homelessness and the causes of it are a complex issue and there is no one answer that is going to apply for every homeless person. But does that mean we should assume no homeless person is capable of recognizing exploitation and politely decline such an opportunity?

BTW: you should look up forniphilia. Some people do willingly become furniture and like it.

After sleeping on it. I woke up feeling terrible about my overly aggressive tone in my comment. For that I'm sorry and also, in the midst of the debate I forgot to congratulate you on overcoming your own homelessness. It's good to hear there was a light at the end of your tunnel. After checking the replies I thought, "omg what have I caused".

I'm overly emotional and overly aggressive. It can be a big positive but here I think it was a negative.

I really understood it as a knee jerk instant reaction and tried to keep it pretty civil. I'm sure you're a good guy.