Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Giving Homeless a Home

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the long-reach-on-that-outreach dept.

Wired is reporting that many individuals currently without permanent housing still manage to stay connected via a cellphone, laptop, or some other gadget. Many homeless have email addresses and find that it offers them a way to get their foot back in the door of 'normal' society. From the article: "Hellerich slept on benches but she frequented a women's shelter with a cluster of internet-connected computers used mostly by the children who arrived at the safe house with their mothers. She started blogging and conducting a business. As an independent internet marketer, she was able to maintain bank accounts, nurse existing client connections and forge new business relationships. The business brought in only about $100 a month, but that was enough to help get her life back on track."

5 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Advertising opportunities by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wake up scuttle, you can't run a story like this without linking to thinkgeek!

    There's no place like 127.0.0.1

    In all seriousness, there are many homeless folks in this world not all of them have the opportunity to get back on their feet.

    Most homeless people aren't there by choice and there are lots of folks who are just 1 pay check away from joining them, spare a thought when your walking around town and if you have some change give generously.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Advertising opportunities by PixelPirate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with your sentiment, I must respectively disagree. I worked in one of the largest homeless shelters in the city in which I live and I'll give you a couple of snapshots.

      Many of the clients (as they were referred to as) often faced addictions and/or mental issues. Often times, living on the street was a matter of their choice -- they didn't trust anyone enough to follow them into a building. Likewise, when people say "give a bit of spare change", this is often the worst advice that can be given as much of that money will go directly into feeding their addiction. It is far better to offer to buy them a coffee, or recommend them to a shelter. Of course, I live in Canada, so it may very well be different in the United States of America...


      -PixelPirate

    2. Re:Advertising opportunities by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've given to the homeless. When things are going especially well for me, I'll give more. I heard an idea that I think is fantastic. Some people by gift certificates for restaurants and when a homeless person asks for "money for food" they give the gift certificates. Someone who really just wants to eat with be greatful. Someone who was planning on buying a bottle of hooch, will not be able to get over on you.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. Homeless by timbennett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The group we lump together as homeless are really at least 2 distinct groups. Group 1 are individuals and families who lack a support network such as family or friends, or may just be too proud to impose upon them. These people can be given a helping hand and can re-integrate into society. Group 2 are the chronic homeless. They are the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the mentally insane. Their only goal in life is their next drink. You can institutionalize them or let them be on the street, but you can't help them. And for every yuppie do-gooder out there who wants to help them, please don't ever give a homeless person money. There are extensive networks run by churches and non-profit groups to distribute food to the hungry. There are no programs to distribute cheap vodka. That requires do-gooders to give them money to purchase the liquor. Give the homeless guy in a park a sandwhich, he's liable to throw it back at you. He'll never say no to the quarter though. Funny huh?

  3. Re:Quite possibly, yes. by kthejoker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great in theory, hilarious in reality.

    I love that idea that if minimum wage was raised, Wal-Mart would be forced to cut workers, rather than reduce their huge profit line to meet the new line.

    If I have one worker, and I pay him $15,000 a year, and I make a profit of $60,000 a year, and the government raises his minimum wage to $20,000 a year, I can still make a big profit and afford him.

    That is the dichotomy which is nonexistent in that silly libertarian approach to the minimum wage. If minimum wage is raised, Wal-Mart doesn't have to cut marginalized jobs. They can also raise the costs of their products, or *gasp* not profit *as much* as they were. Profit is still profit. If you can pay a certain wage and make a profit, then that wage is not detrimental to the job market. Despite the Kool-Aid you're selling.

    Of course the goal is to maximize profit, but it's maximizing it *under certain conditions*, which include providing your workers with a livable wage. If the only reason Wal-Mart executives take home huge paychecks (executive : laborer pay ratios are at an all-time high) and I have cheap goods at Wal-Mart is because they aren't paying their workers a livable wage, that's not a sufficient reason to continue paying their workers that same wage.

    The truth (ie reality, not econ 101 theory) is that we have been on a major trend of reverse distribution of wealth - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer - for nearly 15 years in America. To suggest that somehow companies *won't have the money* to pay any additional wages forced upon them by Congress - and will have to cut jobs rather than pay their workers more - is so disingenuous as to be outrageous.