11 ms·

For years, my father would say "that guy using the food bank has an iPhone! I don't have an iPhone, and I'm not poor. How can these people afford iPhones?" It'

For years, my father would say "that guy using the food bank has an iPhone! I don't have an iPhone, and I'm not poor. How can these people afford iPhones?" It's a generational thing, especially. iPhones are seen as glamorous luxury items, not as an essential tool for living. I always remind my father that the people who have little money but also have iPhones likely don't have a home phone number, home computer, or Internet service in their house. Their iPhone is their only connection to the modern digital world: The one asset they have to get themselves a job, assistance, information. It's arguably one of the most important items for a person to own, today, right up there with a car. Without a good phone and a car, people in the US are basically beached on a shore of unemployment, or low employment, especially in rural towns. It's incredibly hard for people to get back on the horse when they've fallen off, economically. Even harder if they never had a horse to begin with. At the local library, people are constantly coming in to ask for help with digital literacy problems that affect their lives heavily: paying bills, responding to emails, seeing pictures of their grandchildren that were sent to their email. Having a phone with Internet is literally an essential part of modern life, and the generation that thinks poor people shouldn't have iPhones are the same ones who generally view all this technology stuff as magical hoo hah. Like my dad...

Banthum 10y ago
iPhones are luxury smartphones. There are other smartphones that fulfill the same purposes (that you outlined above) which are much cheaper. If someone in poverty buys an iPhone instead of a budget alternative, it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. EDIT: I was disappointed but not surprised that the article didn't even acknowledge this fact, nor really make a case at all for what it was saying. I couldn't find any attempt to convince at all in what was written; it was simply a declaration of how right the author's view is and how obviously stupidly wrong the concept of someone being responsible for their own outcomes is.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You make it sound like "iPhone" must mean "Brand new, cutting edge iPhone!" It could also be... old, refurbished, or "The iPhone I won" or "the iPhone I got on the best sale, " or "The iPhone I still have from when I had a home, and stuff. It's my connection to the world so I can't sell it off." It isn't just a failure of empathy, but creativity, to miss these points.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Or the iphone that was handed down to me by someone else.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Exactly. You can be poor as dirt and still have people who throw you a bone.
  - Banthum 10y ago
    The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. The observation is that the things are damn near universal and often quite new. It isn't just a failure of intelligence, but cognitive discipline, to miss these points.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      By all means, show me the evidence that these "things are damn near universal, and often quite new."
    - eganist 10y ago
      > The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. May you please source this assertion?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
judah 10y ago
Not just the poor, but even homeless often have phones. I'm the author of YSN[0], which is a web and mobile app for helping homeless youth in Minnesota. Whenever I show the app to people, the usual response is: "Wait, homeless youth have phones?" The answer is yes, a great many do. Because, as you note, it's their only connection to the digital world, and often times, the only connection to friends or family. [0]: https://ysnmn.org https://ysnmn.org
- jacquesm 10y ago
  For a homeless person a phone is a first degree necessity.
  - seppin 10y ago
    refugees, too
  - Banthum 10y ago
    Interesting. Why? What changed in the last 15 years to make this so?
    - burkaman 10y ago
      It's very difficult to find a job and a home if you have no way for people to consistently contact you.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      The fact that lots of day-to-day life has moved online. Try finding a job through a news-paper ad, try making a doctors appointment by phone, try reaching the authorities without having to go through email. Try buying a regular map of any city and try staying in touch with your family without facebook or email. Without a home-address email/phone is suddenly the only way authorities can reach you or vv. (Smart)Phones are safety devices. And I'm saying that as a 'dumb' phone user, but I can only afford that because I also have a laptop and a desktop machine and don't care one bit about facebook.
    - 10y ago
lacampbell 10y ago
It's a generational thing, especially. iPhones are seen as glamorous luxury items, not as an essential tool for living. What planet do you live on? An iphone is not an essential tool for living. I was without a smartphone while I was looking for a job last year, and used an old monochrome cellular device. I managed to keep on living without much difficulty. And yes - I travelled. An iphone is a flagship smartphone, there are much cheaper devices you can use to browse the net.
- andrewekeren 10y ago
  It takes a technical person to know there are alternatives.
  - seppin 10y ago
    exactly. smartphones are entry level internet devices, it requires almost no knowledge to use. saying you "don't have one and can do everything just fine" is a humblebrag
    - lacampbell 10y ago
      If you think being able to live without a smartphone is bragging then the problem really isn't with me, it's with you.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Remember, you're homeless in this scenario, so you don't get to comment on HN from your laptop or desktop. Good luck in the libraries!
        lacampbell 10y ago
        There's no scenario, just people claiming luxury smartphones are essential tools for living. Don't but words in my mouth or erect straw men.
wutbrodo 10y ago
I obviously think that Chaffetz's comment was roughly as idiotic as you'd expect from Jason Chaffetz (the high end of Healthcare costs are so exorbitant that any common luxury purchase you can think of completely pales in comparison). But your comment conflates "one of the most expensive smartphones" with "having any connection to the digital world". No disagreement that connectivity is critical and that mobile devices are an efficient way to get there on a low income, but iPhones are definitely not. My mom doesn't have a working computer in her house atm, and her phone cost 200 dollars (or free with carrier subsidy). There's pretty much no reason to get an iPhone on purely functional grounds, just as there would be no reason to get a $700 Galaxy S7. Though I should note that ios has moved downmarket when they started selling older models, which filled some of this gap.
- kevingadd 10y ago
  Try giving a $50 android phone to your grandma (or your mother, for that matter) and see how many complaints and questions you get. I gave up on giving Android devices to my family. They always replaced them with iPhones (used, typically).
  - rhino369 10y ago
    Android isn't really more difficult to use than ios. And not 650 dollars more difficult. This is just a rationalization to buy the more expensive version. If you are poor, an iphone is a shitty use of your money when a Moto G4 exists. Of course, this won't make or break a person, but if it's representative of their cost/benefit analysis in general, their spending could be a huge problem.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > Android isn't really more difficult to use than ios. Having supported a variety of non-technical folks both in a business and family capacity, this simply isn't true. Hell, even basic directions depend widely on the manufacturer - the OS may look and act totally different depending on whether it's a Samsung device or not.
mikestew 10y ago
and the generation that thinks poor people shouldn't have iPhones are the same ones who generally view all this technology stuff as magical hoo hah. Which means they are unlikely to accurately identify an actual iPhone. More likely, they see a glass surface on a diagonally 5" device, and just assume the $50 low-end Android phone is an iPhone. That, and it conveniently fits their uncharitable mind set.
- killwhitey 10y ago
  I own a 4 year old Nexus 4 that I got for $200. Almost everyone I encounter thinks it's an iPhone initially. Many people (especially the older ones) still think it's an iPhone after I tell them it isn't.
dllthomas 10y ago
> Without a good phone and a car There are a lot of things that can go into "good" - unpacking, I think here you more specifically mean "(sufficiently) reliable"?
norea-armozel 10y ago
Remember, these are the kind of people that conflate wealth with owning even a used refrigerator. Or having a used car or anything else that's a modern staple of industrial societies. It's all about the idea that poorness is a sign of sinfulness. And that the righteous are magically immune to the misfortunes of the corrupted material world. Essentially, it's a heretical belief that so many Christian Americans love to entertain even if they verbally denounce it. I really wish more Christians would denounce such heresy to the point of shunning even politicians from their congregations. Maybe then we'd see this nonsense dropped for good.
emjoes1 10y ago
From what I have observed low income people have ObamaPhones. So perhaps that is how they are affording them. But then again the people I observed lived in a ghetto and were signing up for cable and seemed to have more disposable income than they let on... A bit like your father I am confused how they afford a bunch of stuff they appeared to own.
- Balgair 10y ago
  Wow, you are the only commentator in this thread to mention the ObamaPhone; I guess most HN readers here don't interact with less well off society. I know a fair few people that have one and love them. The program, from my anecdata, really does help out the less well off get a job, find information and opportunities, and generally interact with the larger world. Yes, some are just wackos and lazy, but from my view of the world, the taxes that are used via Obamaphones are very out weighed by the increased taxes from when people get stable jobs through the program. If the world is becoming increasingly automated, networked, wired, whatever, then a smartphone is the 0th step in getting people at least up to date with today's zeitgeist. http://www.obamaphone.com/what-is-the-obama-phone http://www.obamaphone.com/what-is-the-obama-phone
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  Last I saw, ObamaPhones were not smartphones under any definition. They resemble old Nokias (although I've seen flip phones).
adewinter 10y ago
The worst part is it doesn't even matter if it's an 'essential tool for living' or not. People who say stuff like your father have obviously never been the crippling, soul destroying, kind of poor. When your life is filled with stress (because you have to work two jobs) and you are constantly on the verge of being homeless/going hungry (despite working 50-80 hours a week), the choice is simple. Choosing between some brief happiness and luxury given by an iPhone, satellite TV, tasty junk food,a nice pair of sneakers, or even a hit of heroin versus more AGONY, STRESS and PAIN provided by real life is a no brainer. It's hard to fault someone for choosing to take a slice of happiness for themselves in between long stretches of crappy existence. Is it not obvious that one should think twice about judging someone else's motivation and behavior without context? What do you know about their life and why they do the things they do? There is even related research that has repeatedly demonstrated[1] that being poor is /not/ due to laziness or being a lesser human. When poor/disadvantaged people are provided funds (with no strings attached!) they do the right thing and improve their own lives. They don't just "spend it all" on "booze and drugs". With the money their lives improve significantly and permanently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer , https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/05/28/why-google-and-facebook-cofounder-chris-hughes-are-giving-cash-directly-to-the-poorest/#12f5fe2d6d17 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/05/28/why-goog... , etc
vilmosi 10y ago
You're conflating an iPhone with a smartphone...
vilmosi 10y ago
You're conflating an iPhone with a smartphone...
js8 10y ago
I agree. My grandmother used to complain in a similar manner, except it was about TV. See, here in Czech Republic, during communism, things like rents and utilities were cheap, but TVs (especially color ones) were a luxury item. Now anybody can have a TV, but the poor people actually spend most money on rent and utilities (we fortunately don't have such a big health care problem as in the U.S.). But I also recently realized she was wrong, because she had wrong "pattern" of status imprinted in memory.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  One of the things that irks me about this is the number of people who would pull a gun on me and insist they're free to live their lives the way they want, do whatever they like, but the moment there's a poor person with a TV then that person is scum and lazy and should be forced - possibly even at gunpoint - to give up any positives in their lives, and live according to the standards set by the person who just insisted that nobody can tell them how to live. It particularly irritates me when it's a some shady employer who refuses to pay for the work done, or demands absolute devotion and loyalty for the barest minimum they can bear to part with.
dvtv75 10y ago
Along these lines, a while ago I was fortunate enough to come into (indirect) contact with an organization that was retiring a bunch of old Apple systems and a few PCs. Because of this, a number of people too poor to consider buying a computer have one. One larger family has two. One small family has three, but it allows the father to work from home, rather than working another 70 hours at work (for no extra pay). I'm sure that a number of the people in this thread, on seeing these computers in these homes, would immediately jump to the conclusion that these poor people are undeserving of any kindness or welfare because they wasted their money on shiny computers - an attitude often proudly worn on the sleeve. I've heard the satellite dish argument before, which makes the very same assumption. ("I was in a poor area and I saw satellite dishes on most houses!" What percentage of houses? Why assume they were hooked up? Why assume that in every house is a poor family? At what threshold would you allow people to start spending their own money as they see fit, and what if there's no way they can earn enough to reach this threshold? Who died and made you dictator of the world, anyway?) Funny thing is that while some small number know who I am, and some think I'm awesome for giving them a computer, I'm not. All I am is the middleman. It's the organization doing the upgrading who got the computers to me that's the real star here. I just happened to know some people in need - and I'm quite excited because the organization may be retiring a few more computers in the near future. We might be able to help change a few more lives for the better. I will have to start looking for more struggling families.

Banthum 10y ago

iPhones are luxury smartphones. There are other smartphones that fulfill the same purposes (that you outlined above) which are much cheaper. If someone in poverty buys an iPhone instead of a budget alternative, it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels. EDIT: I was disappointed but not surprised that the article didn't even acknowledge this fact, nor really make a case at all for what it was saying. I couldn't find any attempt to convince at all in what was written; it was simply a declaration of how right the author's view is and how obviously stupidly wrong the concept of someone being responsible for their own outcomes is.

M_Grey 10y ago
You make it sound like "iPhone" must mean "Brand new, cutting edge iPhone!" It could also be... old, refurbished, or "The iPhone I won" or "the iPhone I got on the best sale, " or "The iPhone I still have from when I had a home, and stuff. It's my connection to the world so I can't sell it off." It isn't just a failure of empathy, but creativity, to miss these points.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Or the iphone that was handed down to me by someone else.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Exactly. You can be poor as dirt and still have people who throw you a bone.
- Banthum 10y ago
  The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. The observation is that the things are damn near universal and often quite new. It isn't just a failure of intelligence, but cognitive discipline, to miss these points.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    By all means, show me the evidence that these "things are damn near universal, and often quite new."
  - eganist 10y ago
    > The things you're stating would explain a small number of iPhones among a given group of poor people. May you please source this assertion?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

judah 10y ago

Not just the poor, but even homeless often have phones. I'm the author of YSN[0], which is a web and mobile app for helping homeless youth in Minnesota. Whenever I show the app to people, the usual response is: "Wait, homeless youth have phones?" The answer is yes, a great many do. Because, as you note, it's their only connection to the digital world, and often times, the only connection to friends or family. [0]: https://ysnmn.org https://ysnmn.org

jacquesm 10y ago
For a homeless person a phone is a first degree necessity.
- seppin 10y ago
  refugees, too
- Banthum 10y ago
  Interesting. Why? What changed in the last 15 years to make this so?
  - burkaman 10y ago
    It's very difficult to find a job and a home if you have no way for people to consistently contact you.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The fact that lots of day-to-day life has moved online. Try finding a job through a news-paper ad, try making a doctors appointment by phone, try reaching the authorities without having to go through email. Try buying a regular map of any city and try staying in touch with your family without facebook or email. Without a home-address email/phone is suddenly the only way authorities can reach you or vv. (Smart)Phones are safety devices. And I'm saying that as a 'dumb' phone user, but I can only afford that because I also have a laptop and a desktop machine and don't care one bit about facebook.
  - 10y ago

lacampbell 10y ago

It's a generational thing, especially. iPhones are seen as glamorous luxury items, not as an essential tool for living. What planet do you live on? An iphone is not an essential tool for living. I was without a smartphone while I was looking for a job last year, and used an old monochrome cellular device. I managed to keep on living without much difficulty. And yes - I travelled. An iphone is a flagship smartphone, there are much cheaper devices you can use to browse the net.

andrewekeren 10y ago
It takes a technical person to know there are alternatives.
- seppin 10y ago
  exactly. smartphones are entry level internet devices, it requires almost no knowledge to use. saying you "don't have one and can do everything just fine" is a humblebrag
  - lacampbell 10y ago
    If you think being able to live without a smartphone is bragging then the problem really isn't with me, it's with you.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Remember, you're homeless in this scenario, so you don't get to comment on HN from your laptop or desktop. Good luck in the libraries!
      - lacampbell 10y ago
        There's no scenario, just people claiming luxury smartphones are essential tools for living. Don't but words in my mouth or erect straw men.

wutbrodo 10y ago

I obviously think that Chaffetz's comment was roughly as idiotic as you'd expect from Jason Chaffetz (the high end of Healthcare costs are so exorbitant that any common luxury purchase you can think of completely pales in comparison). But your comment conflates "one of the most expensive smartphones" with "having any connection to the digital world". No disagreement that connectivity is critical and that mobile devices are an efficient way to get there on a low income, but iPhones are definitely not. My mom doesn't have a working computer in her house atm, and her phone cost 200 dollars (or free with carrier subsidy). There's pretty much no reason to get an iPhone on purely functional grounds, just as there would be no reason to get a $700 Galaxy S7. Though I should note that ios has moved downmarket when they started selling older models, which filled some of this gap.

kevingadd 10y ago
Try giving a $50 android phone to your grandma (or your mother, for that matter) and see how many complaints and questions you get. I gave up on giving Android devices to my family. They always replaced them with iPhones (used, typically).
- rhino369 10y ago
  Android isn't really more difficult to use than ios. And not 650 dollars more difficult. This is just a rationalization to buy the more expensive version. If you are poor, an iphone is a shitty use of your money when a Moto G4 exists. Of course, this won't make or break a person, but if it's representative of their cost/benefit analysis in general, their spending could be a huge problem.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > Android isn't really more difficult to use than ios. Having supported a variety of non-technical folks both in a business and family capacity, this simply isn't true. Hell, even basic directions depend widely on the manufacturer - the OS may look and act totally different depending on whether it's a Samsung device or not.

mikestew 10y ago

and the generation that thinks poor people shouldn't have iPhones are the same ones who generally view all this technology stuff as magical hoo hah. Which means they are unlikely to accurately identify an actual iPhone. More likely, they see a glass surface on a diagonally 5" device, and just assume the $50 low-end Android phone is an iPhone. That, and it conveniently fits their uncharitable mind set.

killwhitey 10y ago
I own a 4 year old Nexus 4 that I got for $200. Almost everyone I encounter thinks it's an iPhone initially. Many people (especially the older ones) still think it's an iPhone after I tell them it isn't.

dllthomas 10y ago

> Without a good phone and a car There are a lot of things that can go into "good" - unpacking, I think here you more specifically mean "(sufficiently) reliable"?

norea-armozel 10y ago

Remember, these are the kind of people that conflate wealth with owning even a used refrigerator. Or having a used car or anything else that's a modern staple of industrial societies. It's all about the idea that poorness is a sign of sinfulness. And that the righteous are magically immune to the misfortunes of the corrupted material world. Essentially, it's a heretical belief that so many Christian Americans love to entertain even if they verbally denounce it. I really wish more Christians would denounce such heresy to the point of shunning even politicians from their congregations. Maybe then we'd see this nonsense dropped for good.

emjoes1 10y ago

From what I have observed low income people have ObamaPhones. So perhaps that is how they are affording them. But then again the people I observed lived in a ghetto and were signing up for cable and seemed to have more disposable income than they let on... A bit like your father I am confused how they afford a bunch of stuff they appeared to own.

Balgair 10y ago
Wow, you are the only commentator in this thread to mention the ObamaPhone; I guess most HN readers here don't interact with less well off society. I know a fair few people that have one and love them. The program, from my anecdata, really does help out the less well off get a job, find information and opportunities, and generally interact with the larger world. Yes, some are just wackos and lazy, but from my view of the world, the taxes that are used via Obamaphones are very out weighed by the increased taxes from when people get stable jobs through the program. If the world is becoming increasingly automated, networked, wired, whatever, then a smartphone is the 0th step in getting people at least up to date with today's zeitgeist. http://www.obamaphone.com/what-is-the-obama-phone http://www.obamaphone.com/what-is-the-obama-phone
stagbeetle 10y ago
Last I saw, ObamaPhones were not smartphones under any definition. They resemble old Nokias (although I've seen flip phones).

adewinter 10y ago

The worst part is it doesn't even matter if it's an 'essential tool for living' or not. People who say stuff like your father have obviously never been the crippling, soul destroying, kind of poor. When your life is filled with stress (because you have to work two jobs) and you are constantly on the verge of being homeless/going hungry (despite working 50-80 hours a week), the choice is simple. Choosing between some brief happiness and luxury given by an iPhone, satellite TV, tasty junk food,a nice pair of sneakers, or even a hit of heroin versus more AGONY, STRESS and PAIN provided by real life is a no brainer. It's hard to fault someone for choosing to take a slice of happiness for themselves in between long stretches of crappy existence. Is it not obvious that one should think twice about judging someone else's motivation and behavior without context? What do you know about their life and why they do the things they do? There is even related research that has repeatedly demonstrated[1] that being poor is /not/ due to laziness or being a lesser human. When poor/disadvantaged people are provided funds (with no strings attached!) they do the right thing and improve their own lives. They don't just "spend it all" on "booze and drugs". With the money their lives improve significantly and permanently. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer , https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/05/28/why-google-and-facebook-cofounder-chris-hughes-are-giving-cash-directly-to-the-poorest/#12f5fe2d6d17 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/05/28/why-goog... , etc

vilmosi 10y ago

You're conflating an iPhone with a smartphone...

vilmosi 10y ago

You're conflating an iPhone with a smartphone...

js8 10y ago

I agree. My grandmother used to complain in a similar manner, except it was about TV. See, here in Czech Republic, during communism, things like rents and utilities were cheap, but TVs (especially color ones) were a luxury item. Now anybody can have a TV, but the poor people actually spend most money on rent and utilities (we fortunately don't have such a big health care problem as in the U.S.). But I also recently realized she was wrong, because she had wrong "pattern" of status imprinted in memory.

dvtv75 10y ago
One of the things that irks me about this is the number of people who would pull a gun on me and insist they're free to live their lives the way they want, do whatever they like, but the moment there's a poor person with a TV then that person is scum and lazy and should be forced - possibly even at gunpoint - to give up any positives in their lives, and live according to the standards set by the person who just insisted that nobody can tell them how to live. It particularly irritates me when it's a some shady employer who refuses to pay for the work done, or demands absolute devotion and loyalty for the barest minimum they can bear to part with.

dvtv75 10y ago

Along these lines, a while ago I was fortunate enough to come into (indirect) contact with an organization that was retiring a bunch of old Apple systems and a few PCs. Because of this, a number of people too poor to consider buying a computer have one. One larger family has two. One small family has three, but it allows the father to work from home, rather than working another 70 hours at work (for no extra pay). I'm sure that a number of the people in this thread, on seeing these computers in these homes, would immediately jump to the conclusion that these poor people are undeserving of any kindness or welfare because they wasted their money on shiny computers - an attitude often proudly worn on the sleeve. I've heard the satellite dish argument before, which makes the very same assumption. ("I was in a poor area and I saw satellite dishes on most houses!" What percentage of houses? Why assume they were hooked up? Why assume that in every house is a poor family? At what threshold would you allow people to start spending their own money as they see fit, and what if there's no way they can earn enough to reach this threshold? Who died and made you dictator of the world, anyway?) Funny thing is that while some small number know who I am, and some think I'm awesome for giving them a computer, I'm not. All I am is the middleman. It's the organization doing the upgrading who got the computers to me that's the real star here. I just happened to know some people in need - and I'm quite excited because the organization may be retiring a few more computers in the near future. We might be able to help change a few more lives for the better. I will have to start looking for more struggling families.