3 ms·

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

• 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.
  • zepto 6y ago
    That depends on how you use it. Lots of people make professional 4K videos on their iPhones, for example.