7 ms·

"But poor people have iphones now" when people can't afford food, healthcare, or any leisure time is the 2021 equivalent of "Let them eat cake". The balance of

"But poor people have iphones now" when people can't afford food, healthcare, or any leisure time is the 2021 equivalent of "Let them eat cake". The balance of wealth is insulting when we have so many basic needs not being met for those at the bottom "Stealing" is a word that gets knee jerk reactions. But the more polite way to phrase it is that the rich benefit from societal structure 1000x more than the poor and are able to acquire wealth at an accelerated pace because of these structures. Asking the wealthy to pay a greater share to improve society is perfectly reasonable. The fallacy in complaining against taxes for the rich that are already higher than their proportional of wealth is ignoring the fact that so much of taxes goes towards systems that just increase the rate of wealth accumulation. The wealthy reap the benefits of power in compounding ways.

JamesBarney 6y ago
It seems like most of taxes goes towards medicare, medicaid, social security, and the military.
- LanceH 6y ago
  and servicing debt
itsoktocry 6y ago
>"But poor people have iphones now" What makes that especially awesome is that Apple and the telecoms have gotten into the business of supplying credit to consumers who would otherwise have no business (literally and figuratively) owning a $1,500 phone when a $250 phone would do.
- zepto 6y ago
  Given that the thread is about how $50T has been appropriated from the poor it seems odd to say that the poor should use $250 phones, and they have no business owning anything which costs more.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. So either a category of people exists that do not need/cannot afford $1500 phones, or $1500 phones are a basic necessity that every human needs alongside food and shelter. I would argue that yes, in the first world a smartphone is almost required, but there are plenty of great <$200 Android phones that do everything one would deem essential. $1500 smartphones are now simply a status symbol alongside Nike's and Rolex's, and have been for some time.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. Sure - but what should the wealth ratio between the top 1% and everyone else be? Perhaps if the ratio were lower, everyone would be able to afford great phones. Also, who ‘deems’ what is essential?
      - smabie 6y ago
        Or maybe no one could afford great phones
    - biztos 6y ago
      I have an iPhone because it is (for my needs) a better machine. I wear Nike running shoes because they fit me well and that gets me a safer workout. Some things have functional advantages even if they also signal status. The working class has at least as much need for functionality as anyone else. A $400 phone vs a $200 one could easily be more useful to a poorer person than a richer one. Same with $100 vs $25 shoes. My Seiko tells time as well as a Rolex (though not as well as an even cheaper quartz watch would). But even here, where status is definitely a factor, it’s not like the Rolex has no additional value: it has resale value, and aesthetic value.
  - dpoochieni 6y ago
    An iphone is as disposable as a kleenex. It is not an asset, at least not a better one than a 250 phone.
tossmeout 6y ago
I think it's perfectly valid to point out that improvements in technology are beneficial to the poor. Technology is the reason why most people would likely prefer to be poor in 2021 than rich in 1547. It's not just iPhones. Even access to food is dramatically better thanks to technology. We no longer have wide-scale famines that we used to have in the past that would kill thousands. Even in the US, to my knowledge, food insecurity is much less of a problem today than it was in 1960. So I don't see the point in implying that technological progress is worthless. I do think it's correct that the rich benefit from societal structures more, but I'd rephrase: the rich are more capable of leveraging societal structures. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, so long as others are allowed a shot at utilizing those structures, too. In other words, the fact that more money gives you more benefits isn't something to be sneered at. It's kind of the whole point of money. It should make your life better. Otherwise it fails as an incentive. What shouldn't be the case, however, is that people are unfairly barred from being able to make more money in the first place. I think we focus too much on equality of outcomes, and not enough on the three important questions: - It doesn't matter who can leverage societal structures the most. Kudos to the people who can. What matters tax-wise is, who is stressing societal structures the most? An example for illustration's sake: if Amazon is placing an insane burden on the road system and causing more maintenance work, theoretically they should pay more for that than the rest of society does. - Why don't people have more opportunity to make money? Is our educational system failing them? Are there laws and regulations that are keeping people down? Is rent-seeking behavior edging people out? Etc. This idea that people can't make money because rich people are "taking it all" is silly and not the real problem. - How can we raise the floor? How do we make it so being poor in America isn't so terrible, and ideally, is okay? We have so many problems with rising healthcare and educational and housing costs, segregation, crime, etc. Collecting more taxes doesn't seem to solve this. Look at SF. One of the most tax-rich cities in America. But do we even know how to deploy that budget effectively to curb homelessness? It doesn't seem so.
readams 6y ago
The question is, based on standard of living, would you rather be poor now or some time in the past? I don't think there's anyone who would choose the past.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  "Things are less shitty now" does not mean things are not still shitty now
  - dionidium 6y ago
    Sure, but it's a perfectly reasonable retort to the claim that things are shittier now.
    - A12-B 6y ago
      It would be, if anyone was making that claim. Instead they say that because things are better now, then you cannot complain.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Poor is a loose word, but there are quite a few people I grew up with who do basically the same job as their parents yet can't afford as much of a house as their parents did at the same age and have less future financial security (retirement savings, pensions, whatever) as their parents did at the same age. Their TV is bigger, but they're also much more stressed about their security...
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    I don't imagine it pays well to be a coalmaker or someone who makes horse drawn carriages either. Is the market actually shrinking or just shifting?
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Say hello to the result of inflation. Where saving is discouraged and what you earn is continually worth less. The best way to demonstrate inflation is to index historical prices to another asset like gold. http://pricedingold.com/us-home-prices/ http://pricedingold.com/us-home-prices/
throwawaysea 6y ago
> "But poor people have iphones now" when people can't afford food, healthcare, or any leisure time is the 2021 equivalent of "Let them eat cake". The iPhone is a luxury product within a category of luxury products. No one needs a smart phone to be successful in life - you don't need it to educate yourself, to find jobs, to do work, to entertained, etc. It could be used for all those things, but it isn't a prerequisite or the only way. But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is. But leaving America aside - consider as well that globally, extreme poverty has plummeted under capitalism (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under...). People today have greater purchasing power, standards of living, and life expectancy than ever before, at every income level. To claim that people somehow cannot afford the basics in a country where immigrants regularly show up, live frugally, grind, save, and find a way to thrive, seems disconnected from reality. Instead of blaming the system fully, some blame must also be apportioned for those who don't show the personal responsibility required to manage their life well. That's not insulting, it's just common sense in my opinion. > Asking the wealthy to pay a greater share to improve society is perfectly reasonable. How is this not explicitly unfair and discriminatory?
- findthewords 6y ago
  "But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is." I take it as a sign of the deflationary nature of technology and economies of scale. Capitalism is a very fuzzy word. I'd say markets and the price mechanism clearly work better than barter. Poorly regulated capitalism is unhealthy.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  I think people definitely need a phone. Maybe not an iPhone or even a computer, but access to email and internet is a must for applying to jobs, paying taxes or... finding out where to get Covid jabs. It's the same way you don't need a car either, but you're going to struggle.
anonuser123456 6y ago
The situation is more nuanced in my reading in wealth, income and inequality. In particular, people don’t actually care about absolute inequality. They care about progress and opportunity. As you stated, the inability to provide for basic needs trumps the fact that you have an iPhone. But the inability to provide for basic needs is not necessarily caused by wealth divergence. Medical care costs today have little to do with wealth, and more to do with the cost disease, regulatory morass/capture and transferring costs from the young to old. Housing costs, another huge personal expenditure, are driven by local NIMBY restrictions and city zoning planners. Education costs are clearly not driven by the wealthy, unless you believe Bryan Caplan’s signaling theory (which I personally do). But in that case, tax transfers don’t help either. And so here is part of the nuance. Some of the wealthy are ‘stealing’ the money via power/regulatory capture etc. Others are not, they are growing real wealth. Yet others are destroying jobs via automation whole making products cheaper. I’m personally less well off because my Dr. can charge 3x his value and my local city vigorously defends single family zoning at the expense of non property owners. But I’m not really worse off that Elon Musk is selling cars at a competitive price or Tim Cook is selling headphones at 550 a pop. And that nuance is important. Equally punishing the growth with ‘theft’ hurts the economy and doesn’t fix any of the underlying problems. All of these excess costs, make it very hard for people to stay afloat let alone build capital/wealth. And those problems persist regardless if we transfer via taxes; housing markets are artificially constrained and tax transfers will just get sucked up to bid the price up. The medical system will find ways to suck up as much money as it possibly can. Giving people more money just to have it siphoned off isn’t a great fix. So I, as a 1%er wouldn’t mind higher taxes. But we have to fix the underlying problems first. Otherwise your just taking my money to hand off to my Dr’s Porsche fund while the less well off get nothing in return.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > people don’t actually care about absolute inequality People care about fairness. Hell, even monkeys care about fairness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg Extreme income inequality is unfair. Jeff Bezos is not 1,000,000,000% "more worthy" of wealth than Richard Feynman—and everyone knows it. Very little about financial capitalism is fair.
NittLion78 6y ago
I always found this graph enlightening, but strictly on its face: https://fee.org/media/17509/prices2-1.png?width=645&height=635 https://fee.org/media/17509/prices2-1.png?width=645&height=6... I don't agree with the argument FEE is trying to make: "Consider each product or service shown. College is heavily subsidized, regulated, and exclusionary, and the costs are soaring. The textbook industry is hobbled by extreme copyright regulation, and can depend on captive buyers. Childcare is one of the most regulated industries in the country. Not just anyone can enter. Every aspect of childcare provision is controlled by the state." To me, the point is the things that people truly need have risen steeply whilst things that are luxuries have decreased greatly in cost and I believe that's a failing of government to not correct where the market would not. If you're surprised that things like healthcare and childcare are regulated, you've likely never been anywhere they were not, but that doesn't mean the costs to end users have to be so exponentially exorbitant as time marches on.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Also, cars are a pretty well regulated industry, and it’s not like software and electronics aren’t impacted by copyright and patent issues. This strikes me as a problem that escapes simple scapegoats.
- fat_pikachu 6y ago
  The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive because (short of having robot caretakers) it always takes 1/4 of a person's labor. Education is similar, but has gotten worse in the past few decades w.r.t. labor requirements. While class sizes have remained relatively constant, there are more administrators, special needs educators, counselors, etc. servicing the same group of students. This isn't to say they shouldn't be regulated, or that there isn't room for improvement. College tuition and textbooks could certainly use some downward pressure.
swiley 6y ago
I'm not even convinced owning an iPhone is a good thing. They're really the modern equivalent of a TV.
nexthash 6y ago
It's actually interesting to look at the history of the income tax in the United States. The highest marginal income tax rate was at a crazy amount (> 70% !!!!!) during wartime in the 1910s and 1940s, corresponding with the strong-regulation Progressive era, and then New Deal policies. These were times of rapidly falling income inequality and rising standards of living, eventually leading to 1950s prosperity. Always good remembering the context in which we live in, and it can help us figure out what we can do to face our problems today. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highes...
908B64B197 6y ago
> But poor people have iphones now A second hand or refurbished iPhone SE is probably the best deal out there. It replaces a land line, especially for lower income folks who move a little more, has built-in internet access (a gateway to accessing government services, jobs, healthcare and knowledge) and built-in navigation, making navigating confusing public transit easier. And Apple supporting hardware forever means that it won't be left out without updates after two years like most lower-priced handsets.
- wyre 6y ago
  I’ve spent so much money on cheap or inexpensive phones the past few years. They end up breaking or they lose functionality and become unusable. I have the new SE and knowing that it will likely be supported (and repairs, if needed, are accessible) I until the next SE comes out. I’m very excited the next SE will probably be the form factor of the 12 mini or very close to that.
dxhdr 6y ago
> the more polite way to phrase it is that the rich benefit from societal structure 1000x more than the poor "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."

JamesBarney 6y ago

It seems like most of taxes goes towards medicare, medicaid, social security, and the military.

LanceH 6y ago
and servicing debt

itsoktocry 6y ago

>"But poor people have iphones now" What makes that especially awesome is that Apple and the telecoms have gotten into the business of supplying credit to consumers who would otherwise have no business (literally and figuratively) owning a $1,500 phone when a $250 phone would do.

zepto 6y ago
Given that the thread is about how $50T has been appropriated from the poor it seems odd to say that the poor should use $250 phones, and they have no business owning anything which costs more.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. So either a category of people exists that do not need/cannot afford $1500 phones, or $1500 phones are a basic necessity that every human needs alongside food and shelter. I would argue that yes, in the first world a smartphone is almost required, but there are plenty of great <$200 Android phones that do everything one would deem essential. $1500 smartphones are now simply a status symbol alongside Nike's and Rolex's, and have been for some time.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. Sure - but what should the wealth ratio between the top 1% and everyone else be? Perhaps if the ratio were lower, everyone would be able to afford great phones. Also, who ‘deems’ what is essential?
    - smabie 6y ago
      Or maybe no one could afford great phones
  - biztos 6y ago
    I have an iPhone because it is (for my needs) a better machine. I wear Nike running shoes because they fit me well and that gets me a safer workout. Some things have functional advantages even if they also signal status. The working class has at least as much need for functionality as anyone else. A $400 phone vs a $200 one could easily be more useful to a poorer person than a richer one. Same with $100 vs $25 shoes. My Seiko tells time as well as a Rolex (though not as well as an even cheaper quartz watch would). But even here, where status is definitely a factor, it’s not like the Rolex has no additional value: it has resale value, and aesthetic value.
- dpoochieni 6y ago
  An iphone is as disposable as a kleenex. It is not an asset, at least not a better one than a 250 phone.

tossmeout 6y ago

I think it's perfectly valid to point out that improvements in technology are beneficial to the poor. Technology is the reason why most people would likely prefer to be poor in 2021 than rich in 1547. It's not just iPhones. Even access to food is dramatically better thanks to technology. We no longer have wide-scale famines that we used to have in the past that would kill thousands. Even in the US, to my knowledge, food insecurity is much less of a problem today than it was in 1960. So I don't see the point in implying that technological progress is worthless. I do think it's correct that the rich benefit from societal structures more, but I'd rephrase: the rich are more capable of leveraging societal structures. Which in and of itself isn't a bad thing, so long as others are allowed a shot at utilizing those structures, too. In other words, the fact that more money gives you more benefits isn't something to be sneered at. It's kind of the whole point of money. It should make your life better. Otherwise it fails as an incentive. What shouldn't be the case, however, is that people are unfairly barred from being able to make more money in the first place. I think we focus too much on equality of outcomes, and not enough on the three important questions: - It doesn't matter who can leverage societal structures the most. Kudos to the people who can. What matters tax-wise is, who is stressing societal structures the most? An example for illustration's sake: if Amazon is placing an insane burden on the road system and causing more maintenance work, theoretically they should pay more for that than the rest of society does. - Why don't people have more opportunity to make money? Is our educational system failing them? Are there laws and regulations that are keeping people down? Is rent-seeking behavior edging people out? Etc. This idea that people can't make money because rich people are "taking it all" is silly and not the real problem. - How can we raise the floor? How do we make it so being poor in America isn't so terrible, and ideally, is okay? We have so many problems with rising healthcare and educational and housing costs, segregation, crime, etc. Collecting more taxes doesn't seem to solve this. Look at SF. One of the most tax-rich cities in America. But do we even know how to deploy that budget effectively to curb homelessness? It doesn't seem so.

readams 6y ago

The question is, based on standard of living, would you rather be poor now or some time in the past? I don't think there's anyone who would choose the past.

mrguyorama 6y ago
"Things are less shitty now" does not mean things are not still shitty now
- dionidium 6y ago
  Sure, but it's a perfectly reasonable retort to the claim that things are shittier now.
  - A12-B 6y ago
    It would be, if anyone was making that claim. Instead they say that because things are better now, then you cannot complain.
majormajor 6y ago
Poor is a loose word, but there are quite a few people I grew up with who do basically the same job as their parents yet can't afford as much of a house as their parents did at the same age and have less future financial security (retirement savings, pensions, whatever) as their parents did at the same age. Their TV is bigger, but they're also much more stressed about their security...
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  I don't imagine it pays well to be a coalmaker or someone who makes horse drawn carriages either. Is the market actually shrinking or just shifting?
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Say hello to the result of inflation. Where saving is discouraged and what you earn is continually worth less. The best way to demonstrate inflation is to index historical prices to another asset like gold. http://pricedingold.com/us-home-prices/ http://pricedingold.com/us-home-prices/

throwawaysea 6y ago

> "But poor people have iphones now" when people can't afford food, healthcare, or any leisure time is the 2021 equivalent of "Let them eat cake". The iPhone is a luxury product within a category of luxury products. No one needs a smart phone to be successful in life - you don't need it to educate yourself, to find jobs, to do work, to entertained, etc. It could be used for all those things, but it isn't a prerequisite or the only way. But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is. But leaving America aside - consider as well that globally, extreme poverty has plummeted under capitalism (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under...). People today have greater purchasing power, standards of living, and life expectancy than ever before, at every income level. To claim that people somehow cannot afford the basics in a country where immigrants regularly show up, live frugally, grind, save, and find a way to thrive, seems disconnected from reality. Instead of blaming the system fully, some blame must also be apportioned for those who don't show the personal responsibility required to manage their life well. That's not insulting, it's just common sense in my opinion. > Asking the wealthy to pay a greater share to improve society is perfectly reasonable. How is this not explicitly unfair and discriminatory?

findthewords 6y ago
"But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is." I take it as a sign of the deflationary nature of technology and economies of scale. Capitalism is a very fuzzy word. I'd say markets and the price mechanism clearly work better than barter. Poorly regulated capitalism is unhealthy.
throwaway3699 6y ago
I think people definitely need a phone. Maybe not an iPhone or even a computer, but access to email and internet is a must for applying to jobs, paying taxes or... finding out where to get Covid jabs. It's the same way you don't need a car either, but you're going to struggle.

anonuser123456 6y ago

The situation is more nuanced in my reading in wealth, income and inequality. In particular, people don’t actually care about absolute inequality. They care about progress and opportunity. As you stated, the inability to provide for basic needs trumps the fact that you have an iPhone. But the inability to provide for basic needs is not necessarily caused by wealth divergence. Medical care costs today have little to do with wealth, and more to do with the cost disease, regulatory morass/capture and transferring costs from the young to old. Housing costs, another huge personal expenditure, are driven by local NIMBY restrictions and city zoning planners. Education costs are clearly not driven by the wealthy, unless you believe Bryan Caplan’s signaling theory (which I personally do). But in that case, tax transfers don’t help either. And so here is part of the nuance. Some of the wealthy are ‘stealing’ the money via power/regulatory capture etc. Others are not, they are growing real wealth. Yet others are destroying jobs via automation whole making products cheaper. I’m personally less well off because my Dr. can charge 3x his value and my local city vigorously defends single family zoning at the expense of non property owners. But I’m not really worse off that Elon Musk is selling cars at a competitive price or Tim Cook is selling headphones at 550 a pop. And that nuance is important. Equally punishing the growth with ‘theft’ hurts the economy and doesn’t fix any of the underlying problems. All of these excess costs, make it very hard for people to stay afloat let alone build capital/wealth. And those problems persist regardless if we transfer via taxes; housing markets are artificially constrained and tax transfers will just get sucked up to bid the price up. The medical system will find ways to suck up as much money as it possibly can. Giving people more money just to have it siphoned off isn’t a great fix. So I, as a 1%er wouldn’t mind higher taxes. But we have to fix the underlying problems first. Otherwise your just taking my money to hand off to my Dr’s Porsche fund while the less well off get nothing in return.

erichocean 6y ago
> people don’t actually care about absolute inequality People care about fairness. Hell, even monkeys care about fairness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg Extreme income inequality is unfair. Jeff Bezos is not 1,000,000,000% "more worthy" of wealth than Richard Feynman—and everyone knows it. Very little about financial capitalism is fair.

NittLion78 6y ago

I always found this graph enlightening, but strictly on its face: https://fee.org/media/17509/prices2-1.png?width=645&height=635 https://fee.org/media/17509/prices2-1.png?width=645&height=6... I don't agree with the argument FEE is trying to make: "Consider each product or service shown. College is heavily subsidized, regulated, and exclusionary, and the costs are soaring. The textbook industry is hobbled by extreme copyright regulation, and can depend on captive buyers. Childcare is one of the most regulated industries in the country. Not just anyone can enter. Every aspect of childcare provision is controlled by the state." To me, the point is the things that people truly need have risen steeply whilst things that are luxuries have decreased greatly in cost and I believe that's a failing of government to not correct where the market would not. If you're surprised that things like healthcare and childcare are regulated, you've likely never been anywhere they were not, but that doesn't mean the costs to end users have to be so exponentially exorbitant as time marches on.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Also, cars are a pretty well regulated industry, and it’s not like software and electronics aren’t impacted by copyright and patent issues. This strikes me as a problem that escapes simple scapegoats.
fat_pikachu 6y ago
The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive because (short of having robot caretakers) it always takes 1/4 of a person's labor. Education is similar, but has gotten worse in the past few decades w.r.t. labor requirements. While class sizes have remained relatively constant, there are more administrators, special needs educators, counselors, etc. servicing the same group of students. This isn't to say they shouldn't be regulated, or that there isn't room for improvement. College tuition and textbooks could certainly use some downward pressure.

swiley 6y ago

I'm not even convinced owning an iPhone is a good thing. They're really the modern equivalent of a TV.

nexthash 6y ago

It's actually interesting to look at the history of the income tax in the United States. The highest marginal income tax rate was at a crazy amount (> 70% !!!!!) during wartime in the 1910s and 1940s, corresponding with the strong-regulation Progressive era, and then New Deal policies. These were times of rapidly falling income inequality and rising standards of living, eventually leading to 1950s prosperity. Always good remembering the context in which we live in, and it can help us figure out what we can do to face our problems today. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highes...

908B64B197 6y ago

> But poor people have iphones now A second hand or refurbished iPhone SE is probably the best deal out there. It replaces a land line, especially for lower income folks who move a little more, has built-in internet access (a gateway to accessing government services, jobs, healthcare and knowledge) and built-in navigation, making navigating confusing public transit easier. And Apple supporting hardware forever means that it won't be left out without updates after two years like most lower-priced handsets.

wyre 6y ago
I’ve spent so much money on cheap or inexpensive phones the past few years. They end up breaking or they lose functionality and become unusable. I have the new SE and knowing that it will likely be supported (and repairs, if needed, are accessible) I until the next SE comes out. I’m very excited the next SE will probably be the form factor of the 12 mini or very close to that.

dxhdr 6y ago

> the more polite way to phrase it is that the rich benefit from societal structure 1000x more than the poor "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."