Something that jumped at me in the beginning, about the soup kitchen line:
Some carry iPods and smartphones, others come in suits.
Am I wrong to assume that somebody that can afford a smartphone and accompanying plans (which are not that cheap) and other gadgets like iPod, which probably means they own a computer and a broadband internet connection too - usually aren't so poor that they would literally starve without a soup kitchen?
This is a common thought, but it can be awfully misleading.
First, anything that doesn't have a recurring charge -- like the suit and the iPod -- is something that may well have been bought when they had a higher income level.
Second, if you're looking for work today -- even outside of the tech sector -- not having a phone is very often not an option. Prospective employers need to be able to reach you and vice-versa, and if you're a temp worker or day laborer you need to be able to get that phone message very fast. If you're homeless a mobile phone may be your only realistic option.
Why not a cheaper phone than a smartphone? Even if you're poor, you may still want email and text messages and web browsing; email is close to a necessity in America today, web browsing is immensely useful, and that smartphone may also be your only source of entertainment. I think HN-ers may also tend to think of "smartphone" as implying "$200+ device and $100/mo bill," but it's pretty easy to get a $50 Android or Lumia phone and a $50-60/mo plan these days.
Last but not least, IIRC the article suggested the "suits and smartphones" types were people who weren't homeless yet, but whose rents had increased to a point where they were having trouble affording food. Someone making $20 an hour, way over minimum wage, would gross about $40K a year and net about $2500 a month -- they'd be lucky if "only" 75% of that was going to rent (assuming they'd started renting a few years ago when that was remotely possible). But they'd be making way too much to qualify for any government assistance like food stamps (SNAP).
iPod is not very useful without a computer and supposedly new music downloaded through the internet using broadband. Phones can be gotten for free (e.g. the famous "Obamaphone" or SafeLink) but it doesn't have to be a smartphone, which requires an expensive data plan ($60/m for a person who has literally no money for food seems to be not a negligible sum). The employer has to reach you, but it doesn't have to like your Facebook updates, right? I'm just thinking maybe it's not always need but sometimes convenience.
Some smartphones are under $200 with pay as you go plans. Also, it's getting harder to get a feature phone now. People keep them for years, for what could be < $0.30/day. Also, if it lets you search for jobs, schedule interviews, etc, it can be essential for getting your next job/interview (ditto the suit).
People make judgement calls about what they need, and a smartphone is probably just as essential to someone seeking employment in the city as a working car is for someone looking for a job in the suburbs. Even if you need to take it to the soup kitchen.
I'm not sure how the smartphone is essential, could you explain? If you need to look up jobs, local library and good old pen & paper is always at your service. Same with recording and keeping appointments - a good old notebook would work. Calling prospective employers doesn't need a smartphone. If you need to make something like printed resume, smartphone is no help, you need a real computer anyway. So where it is essential? I'm not sure I still get it.
Some carry iPods and smartphones, others come in suits.
Am I wrong to assume that somebody that can afford a smartphone and accompanying plans (which are not that cheap) and other gadgets like iPod, which probably means they own a computer and a broadband internet connection too - usually aren't so poor that they would literally starve without a soup kitchen?