Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mark Lemley
Recent Activity
-
Mark commented on the article |Quick correction:
We pay an intern a very small amount per month, on a contract basis, for editing services. He is the only non-vendor who recieves money from The Contributor (from paper-sales, donations or ad-sales).
-
Mark commented on the article |
SlumJack,
To answer your questions:
* The paper does break even. Our sales pay for printing cost and supplies.* At this point, there are no paid staff working for the paper.
* As I said in my above post:
"street papers DO pay some people's rent and DO provide a financial vehicle for getting off the streets."
This is not theoretical, it is based on the actual vendors who pay their monthly rent with money from paper sales. We have filled out and faxed forms for multiple Vendors verifying the amount of papers they buy from us to sell in order to secure their housing (which they have kept!).
This article in The Tennessean concurs and I was only troubled that the author used this as a primary source, but seemed to leave out this crucial detail:
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090906/NEWS01/909060365/-1/RSS05
As for tips, I have worked at conventional, capitalist, self-sustaining businesses where "tips" were a crucial part of my income. They are a way that commerce encourages better service and interaction between customers and sales representatives. If Contributor customers consistently want our vendors to "keep the change," perhaps this is the community setting the value of the service at higher than a dollar.
-
Mark commented on the article |
I sent this as a direct message to the author the day this article ran. I haven't recieved a response, and I feel this article needs some clarification, so I'm posting it as a comment to at least add my voice to the fray.
Hi Shannon,
This began as a comment under your "How Lucrative is Selling Street Papers" story. It got a little long and seemed more for the author than the public, so I thought I'd just send it as a message.
To lay my cards on the table, I work with The Contributor as an occasional writer and editor and I've paid close attention to the paper's progress. I don't think selling street papers is a permanent employment solution for our vendors and I know it will never end homelessness, but for many it has been a step up and a move into housing or more lasting work.
I appreciate your emphasis on the personal interaction that street papers create between those who have experienced homelessness and those who have not. Often, people ask us why we don't just sell the papers at coffee shops and news stands, and we have to explain that the personal exchange means more and does more to change minds than any article we could put in print. Most people don't get that, so I was glad to see you emphasize it.
I was, however, confused by your take on what street papers can and can't do as a source of income. I may be wrong, but you seem to be using the recent articles in The Tennessean and USA Today as your primary sources. I have reread both those articles today and I'm finding some things that contradict your stance.
Firstly, in your closing you say that "Street papers may not pay anyone's rent or provide a financial vehicle for getting off the streets" but the article in The Tennessean begins by featuring a couple, Jerry and Karen Andraeson, who got off the streets and pay their monthly rent using money from street paper sales. The article ends with Ray Ponce DeLeon who "got an apartment in Mercury Court, using his work and income from The Contributor to show that he was reliable." The article is not explicit, but Ray also pays rent using money from paper sales.
So, street papers do pay some people's rent and do provide a financial vehicle for getting off the streets.
The meat of your story seems to be the phrase that Tony Angello and Quita Thornton make "a couple hundred dollars" a month selling papers. First off, I'm having trouble finding the phrase "a couple hundred dollars" regarding Tony and Quita's monthly sales in either article. Did this come from another source?
In any case, "a couple hundred" is vernacular and is not an actual amount, but 500 papers per month is. Some quick figuring would show that selling 500 papers per month at $1 per paper (minus $.25 each for cost) would bring in $375 a month. If, as the USA Today article states, paper sales plus tips average $2 per paper, than the couple would bring in at least $875 a month.
The article in The Tennessean states that Tony and Quita had been using their income to pay for nightly hotel rooms for $40 to $50 (paying at least $1200 a month if they stay every night). So rather than saying that "their earnings are not enough to pay for housing" this seems to indicate that, barring other expenses, they may have money for housing after only a few weeks of sleeping in a tent. Obviously, this is far from an ideal circumstance, but we all know how hard it is to come up with first/last month's rent, deposits, etc to get started.
To be clear, I don't know if Tony and Quita will get off the street by selling papers, but I do know that with their work ethic and what they bring in from paper sales, income should not be the deciding factor in whether they do or not.
Again, I don't think selling The Contributor is a permanent solution for our vendors. I want to see them outgrow it and move into more lucrative employment. I have, however, seen paper sales pay for housing. I believe that housing, for many people, is a necessity for finding lasting, sustained employment.
If you find any of this compelling, I would ask you to amend your article to show these facts which I have pulled from the two sources you use.
Thanks,
--Mark Lemley
