> "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 i

> "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?