4 ms·

The middle class has shrunk because more people have become rich. So it seems that today there are greater opportunities to sell expensive hardware, particularl

The middle class has shrunk because more people have become rich. So it seems that today there are greater opportunities to sell expensive hardware, particularly since even the lower classes are (in absolute terms) richer than the middle class of the Apple II era. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middl... As for 5k products, like fancy drones, 3d printers or high end bicycles, was the apple II non-niche?

mcguire 11y ago
Source for that first sentence?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The link provided. Look at the charts, not the mood affiliation.
rdtsc 11y ago
> So it seems that today there are greater opportunities to sell expensive hardware, particularly since even the lower classes are (in absolute terms) richer than the middle class of the Apple II era. What has happened is instead technology allowed some luxury products to be commodized and available to everyone. I doubt multi-billionairs build their own OS-es, cell phone towers, hardware, batteries, support from scratch. They buy an iPhone. Someone on food stamps could concievable save money and still get an iPhone. They both have a luxury product so to speak. But this is a cool anomaly. It doesn't happen with cars, housing, job opportunities, healthcare, clothes, safety, free time, food, etc. So I think looking what kind of tech products are avaiable to everyone doesn't work as an argument regarding inequality. What about inflation adjusted salary, isn't that a better metric to look at? Or say the cost of healthcare or housing as percentage of wages... defintely not the type of computer and printers people can get.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  75% of poor Americans own at least 1 car, and 45% own their own home. Most poor people have copious amounts of free time; only a fraction work. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Of course, this is tangential to curun1r's claim, which is that somehow an inability for consumers to purchase new technologies would hinder innovation.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    Are you sure "own" is the correct word? Those people are completely debt-free with no car liens or mortgages?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The document (like most statistical documents published by the US Govt) defines it's terms - why don't you go to section A-1 and check yourself?
    - anon1385 11y ago
      I looked at the linked document. The figures are as follows (all in thousands): 14,157 units below the poverty line (12.7% of all units) 5,566 of those Owner occupied (39.3%) 3,191 of those owned "free and clear" (22%) So his 45% claim isn't even true to start with. It falls to 22% when you consider full ownership. Seeing yummyfajitas make factually incorrect claims is disappointing but not surprising.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I did misremember the 45% vs 39% number (my notes on that report transposed two separate stats), but I'm assuming that by "factually incorrect" you mean referring to a mortgage holder as an owner. If so, do you also consider the Census (whose terminology I used) to be making "factually incorrect claims"?
      - simon_ 11y ago

mcguire 11y ago

Source for that first sentence?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The link provided. Look at the charts, not the mood affiliation.

rdtsc 11y ago

> So it seems that today there are greater opportunities to sell expensive hardware, particularly since even the lower classes are (in absolute terms) richer than the middle class of the Apple II era. What has happened is instead technology allowed some luxury products to be commodized and available to everyone. I doubt multi-billionairs build their own OS-es, cell phone towers, hardware, batteries, support from scratch. They buy an iPhone. Someone on food stamps could concievable save money and still get an iPhone. They both have a luxury product so to speak. But this is a cool anomaly. It doesn't happen with cars, housing, job opportunities, healthcare, clothes, safety, free time, food, etc. So I think looking what kind of tech products are avaiable to everyone doesn't work as an argument regarding inequality. What about inflation adjusted salary, isn't that a better metric to look at? Or say the cost of healthcare or housing as percentage of wages... defintely not the type of computer and printers people can get.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
75% of poor Americans own at least 1 car, and 45% own their own home. Most poor people have copious amounts of free time; only a fraction work. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Of course, this is tangential to curun1r's claim, which is that somehow an inability for consumers to purchase new technologies would hinder innovation.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Are you sure "own" is the correct word? Those people are completely debt-free with no car liens or mortgages?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The document (like most statistical documents published by the US Govt) defines it's terms - why don't you go to section A-1 and check yourself?
  - anon1385 11y ago
    I looked at the linked document. The figures are as follows (all in thousands): 14,157 units below the poverty line (12.7% of all units) 5,566 of those Owner occupied (39.3%) 3,191 of those owned "free and clear" (22%) So his 45% claim isn't even true to start with. It falls to 22% when you consider full ownership. Seeing yummyfajitas make factually incorrect claims is disappointing but not surprising.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I did misremember the 45% vs 39% number (my notes on that report transposed two separate stats), but I'm assuming that by "factually incorrect" you mean referring to a mortgage holder as an owner. If so, do you also consider the Census (whose terminology I used) to be making "factually incorrect claims"?
    - simon_ 11y ago