5 ms·

Sure you can have the entire worlds information and entertainment at your fingertips with a $50 smartphone, but if you can't afford to have a roof over your hea

Sure you can have the entire worlds information and entertainment at your fingertips with a $50 smartphone, but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. I don't think we should be including basic necessities alongside improvements in entertainment in the same statistic, because it will just hide problems.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
> I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. Access to information helps you obtain and maintain a roof over your head. > I don't think we should be including basic necessities alongside improvements in entertainment in the same statistic, because it will just hide problems. Agreed.
- Arn_Thor 6y ago
  Yes and no.. The smartphone is extremely relevant because access to the internet is essential for modern life. So much necessary activity takes place online, from banking to accessing public services. That needs to be factored in, perhaps not as the cost of a smartphone, but rather the cost of a laptop plus internet. And yet, it doesn't matter if you have a smartphone and internet access if there are no jobs, or if those jobs don't pay sufficiently.
  - p1necone 6y ago
    To add to that internet connected device is required, but latest iPhone that costs 15x as much is not really materially more important than a $50 one for looking at job ads/emailing potential landlords. Likewise, a flagship phone 5 years ago might be technically less advanced than a flagship phone today, but that doesn't mean todays flagship phone is any better at looking at job ads today than the other one was 5 years ago either. This idea that we should weight technical improvements like this when judging how the economy is performing just seems like a (maybe unintentional) attempt to paint a rosier picture than actual reality to me.
    - cwillu 6y ago
      Except that the sites expand to fit the devices in use by those that make them, unless someone goes to deliberate and extensive efforts to prevent it.
oarabbus_ 6y ago
I've seen homeless people with a smartphone, and the phone seems pretty relevant to them
gruez 6y ago
>but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. The problem is that hosing (specifically land) is fundamentally a scarce resource, and since the 50s competition has only gotten higher (total population going up, people becoming more concentrated into cities). It's not that shelter has gotten more expensive, it's shelter in desirable places have gotten more expensive.
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s very much a failure of society, making it a perfectly relevant thing to compare about different time periods. The housing crunch in hot markets is really just a zoning issue. For example a federal mandate that new housing must be zoned into the area when adding new office space, retail, or residential space would largely solve the issue.
Aerroon 6y ago
I think the problem is that housing is exclusionary and people want to live in some locations rather than others. Typical housing doesn't scale well. This creates an effect where people are effectively bidding each other up on the price of housing, because the winner gets to live in that location and everyone else doesn't. This means that the cost of housing scales with how wealthy the people who want to live in that area are. A 2000 sqft house in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming might cost $200k. In SF you'll get far less for the same money. People want to be in SF, because there's more to do, but also because the better paying jobs are there. This uplifts the entire area, but also makes things like housing more expensive. In a lot of ways I think the cost of housing is dependent on the housing density vs job density of the area. If job density is much higher than the housing density, then the price of housing goes up by a lot. I think a similar idea can be used to explain the high costs of higher education. Every university has a limited number of spots, so people are willing to pay more and more to get a spot. Loans mean that everyone's capable of paying the money to the university, regardless what they charge.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  There is an exclusionary side to housing. But there's also a stock component to it. If I can buy the same iPhone as you it's because Apple is willing to build more iPhones to follow demand. Cities don't seem to follow housing demand (for a reason or another) hence the shortage and the high prices. > A 2000 sqft house in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming might cost $200k. In SF you'll get far less for the same money. People want to be in SF, because there's more to do, but also because the better paying jobs are there. This uplifts the entire area, but also makes things like housing more expensive. Of course people follow the jobs and other things coming from there being many people around. Hence why the house in the middle of nowhere is cheap, no one wants to live there. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop. But would less people want to live in SF if somehow tomorrow there would be X% more housing units available on the market such that the price would be drastically lower? Of course, there being more housing would have to have other consequences which could (and probably would) effect the desirability of the city. I'm not familiar with SF, but for example in Paris that would probably mean replacing older buildings with newer, taller ones. That would of course change many things, the first of which is its "visual character". Which would make it look more like say NY (because of the tall buildings) than it currently does. People would try to prevent that (if for no other reason than because people are sometimes against change) but, in the aggregate, would that bring less people here? I doubt it. However, that would probably create more jobs in the city, which would bring in even more people, and so on. After all, today's big cities all started with a bunch of shacks, right? My hope, as has been discussed in other threads, is that with remote work gaining traction, at least some people will leave the cities. I know many people who would like that because they don't particularly enjoy city life. This would allow, of course, some other people to come in who couldn't afford it but wanted it, but maybe, in aggregate, city population would be lower. I, for example, would gladly go live further out in the suburbs if I only had to come in the office once in a while (say no more than once, maybe twice a week).
jjav 6y ago
> I don't think we should be including basic necessities alongside improvements in entertainment in the same statistic, because it will just hide problems. Exactly. But you can buy a 50" TV today for less than the price of a car! That hardly matters to anyone struggling to pay rent and the supermarket bill.
brazzy 6y ago
> but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of homeless people would disagree vehemently. Not only does smartphone make it much easier to find a job and get back to the point where you can afford a roof over your head, it allows you to stay in touch with people you care about, people who may help you out now and then. And it gives you access to lots of useful information that can improve your life, like sources of free food.
- Leparamour 6y ago
  Can homeless people afford data plans? Luckily I haven't been homeless yet, but there were times when I was too poor to have enough phone credit for internet or even regular calls. Granted, there are places that offer free wifi but only with an order if you are a paying customer, which I think most homeless people aren't.
  - brazzy 6y ago
    The availability of cheap data plans and free Wifi varies radically between different places. And most homeless people absolutely can afford to be a paying customer somewhere - a low-cost gym membership for access to showers is fairly common. A homeless person is just someone who can't afford a home. They're not all your stereotypical pan-handling drug addict in torn, dirty clothes.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    A data plan's a heck of a lot cheaper than rent.
- cambalache 6y ago
  I dont know what homeless people you do know (I guess the number is zero) but here on planet earth 99.99% of poor/homeless people would prefer a roof over their heads than a smart-phone. Well, everybody with a working brain would choose the house.
  - brazzy 6y ago
DoreenMichele 6y ago
I spent nearly 6 years homeless. I earned money online to help keep myself fed, among other things. A cheap phone is vastly cheaper than rent. It's tiresome to see people online act like "If only you would not extravagantly piss away $7/month on a phone, you would be back in housing!!!" Internet access and a phone number are essential for job hunting and an earned income is a common means to get off the street. You can also do online banking and other essential things much easier than dealing with going in person on foot to the bank and so forth.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  Nobody's saying that you shouldn't spend money on a phone and save it for housing. Rather the opposite. People are saying that literally everything except housing (and healthcare) is so cheap compared to housing (and healthcare) that inflation measures (which typically exclude housing and healthcare) are pretty much useless.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    This is the line I was responding to: but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. A phone and tablet and internet access were essential to my ability to cope and eventually get back into housing. They aren't irrelevant. If you want to argue we need to do a much better job of making housing something people can afford, I totally agree. If you want to argue that homeless people just are supposed to entirely cease to exist and not care about anything people in homes care about or something....no. That absolutely doesn't work as an argument. The internet is a really massively helpful thing for people who are homeless.
    - bondarchuk 6y ago
      Seems to me like we are secretly all in agreement but people are misinterpreting p1necone. Whatever.
    - rhines 6y ago
      I think what they mean is that if you can't afford shelter, it's little comfort to be able to afford a phone. Yes, the phone may be a tool that can help you find shelter, and it may help with coping with your situation and finding other opportunities, but in the end you're still trying to get shelter. If you could afford a home initially, you wouldn't need the phone to help you get one. So no one here is arguing that homeless people shouldn't have phones or internet or anything like that, rather they're arguing that we'd have better housing opportunities if shelter was what had become so cheap, rather than phones. So measuring inflation based on the prices of non-critical goods is fine if you already own a house, but it fails to reflect reality for people who are struggling to make rent.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago

> I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. Access to information helps you obtain and maintain a roof over your head. > I don't think we should be including basic necessities alongside improvements in entertainment in the same statistic, because it will just hide problems. Agreed.

Arn_Thor 6y ago
Yes and no.. The smartphone is extremely relevant because access to the internet is essential for modern life. So much necessary activity takes place online, from banking to accessing public services. That needs to be factored in, perhaps not as the cost of a smartphone, but rather the cost of a laptop plus internet. And yet, it doesn't matter if you have a smartphone and internet access if there are no jobs, or if those jobs don't pay sufficiently.
- p1necone 6y ago
  To add to that internet connected device is required, but latest iPhone that costs 15x as much is not really materially more important than a $50 one for looking at job ads/emailing potential landlords. Likewise, a flagship phone 5 years ago might be technically less advanced than a flagship phone today, but that doesn't mean todays flagship phone is any better at looking at job ads today than the other one was 5 years ago either. This idea that we should weight technical improvements like this when judging how the economy is performing just seems like a (maybe unintentional) attempt to paint a rosier picture than actual reality to me.
  - cwillu 6y ago
    Except that the sites expand to fit the devices in use by those that make them, unless someone goes to deliberate and extensive efforts to prevent it.

oarabbus_ 6y ago

I've seen homeless people with a smartphone, and the phone seems pretty relevant to them

gruez 6y ago

>but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. The problem is that hosing (specifically land) is fundamentally a scarce resource, and since the 50s competition has only gotten higher (total population going up, people becoming more concentrated into cities). It's not that shelter has gotten more expensive, it's shelter in desirable places have gotten more expensive.

Retric 6y ago
That’s very much a failure of society, making it a perfectly relevant thing to compare about different time periods. The housing crunch in hot markets is really just a zoning issue. For example a federal mandate that new housing must be zoned into the area when adding new office space, retail, or residential space would largely solve the issue.

Aerroon 6y ago

I think the problem is that housing is exclusionary and people want to live in some locations rather than others. Typical housing doesn't scale well. This creates an effect where people are effectively bidding each other up on the price of housing, because the winner gets to live in that location and everyone else doesn't. This means that the cost of housing scales with how wealthy the people who want to live in that area are. A 2000 sqft house in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming might cost $200k. In SF you'll get far less for the same money. People want to be in SF, because there's more to do, but also because the better paying jobs are there. This uplifts the entire area, but also makes things like housing more expensive. In a lot of ways I think the cost of housing is dependent on the housing density vs job density of the area. If job density is much higher than the housing density, then the price of housing goes up by a lot. I think a similar idea can be used to explain the high costs of higher education. Every university has a limited number of spots, so people are willing to pay more and more to get a spot. Loans mean that everyone's capable of paying the money to the university, regardless what they charge.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
There is an exclusionary side to housing. But there's also a stock component to it. If I can buy the same iPhone as you it's because Apple is willing to build more iPhones to follow demand. Cities don't seem to follow housing demand (for a reason or another) hence the shortage and the high prices. > A 2000 sqft house in the middle of nowhere in Wyoming might cost $200k. In SF you'll get far less for the same money. People want to be in SF, because there's more to do, but also because the better paying jobs are there. This uplifts the entire area, but also makes things like housing more expensive. Of course people follow the jobs and other things coming from there being many people around. Hence why the house in the middle of nowhere is cheap, no one wants to live there. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop. But would less people want to live in SF if somehow tomorrow there would be X% more housing units available on the market such that the price would be drastically lower? Of course, there being more housing would have to have other consequences which could (and probably would) effect the desirability of the city. I'm not familiar with SF, but for example in Paris that would probably mean replacing older buildings with newer, taller ones. That would of course change many things, the first of which is its "visual character". Which would make it look more like say NY (because of the tall buildings) than it currently does. People would try to prevent that (if for no other reason than because people are sometimes against change) but, in the aggregate, would that bring less people here? I doubt it. However, that would probably create more jobs in the city, which would bring in even more people, and so on. After all, today's big cities all started with a bunch of shacks, right? My hope, as has been discussed in other threads, is that with remote work gaining traction, at least some people will leave the cities. I know many people who would like that because they don't particularly enjoy city life. This would allow, of course, some other people to come in who couldn't afford it but wanted it, but maybe, in aggregate, city population would be lower. I, for example, would gladly go live further out in the suburbs if I only had to come in the office once in a while (say no more than once, maybe twice a week).

jjav 6y ago

> I don't think we should be including basic necessities alongside improvements in entertainment in the same statistic, because it will just hide problems. Exactly. But you can buy a 50" TV today for less than the price of a car! That hardly matters to anyone struggling to pay rent and the supermarket bill.

brazzy 6y ago

> but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of homeless people would disagree vehemently. Not only does smartphone make it much easier to find a job and get back to the point where you can afford a roof over your head, it allows you to stay in touch with people you care about, people who may help you out now and then. And it gives you access to lots of useful information that can improve your life, like sources of free food.

Leparamour 6y ago
Can homeless people afford data plans? Luckily I haven't been homeless yet, but there were times when I was too poor to have enough phone credit for internet or even regular calls. Granted, there are places that offer free wifi but only with an order if you are a paying customer, which I think most homeless people aren't.
- brazzy 6y ago
  The availability of cheap data plans and free Wifi varies radically between different places. And most homeless people absolutely can afford to be a paying customer somewhere - a low-cost gym membership for access to showers is fairly common. A homeless person is just someone who can't afford a home. They're not all your stereotypical pan-handling drug addict in torn, dirty clothes.
- michaelt 6y ago
  A data plan's a heck of a lot cheaper than rent.
cambalache 6y ago
I dont know what homeless people you do know (I guess the number is zero) but here on planet earth 99.99% of poor/homeless people would prefer a roof over their heads than a smart-phone. Well, everybody with a working brain would choose the house.
- brazzy 6y ago

DoreenMichele 6y ago

I spent nearly 6 years homeless. I earned money online to help keep myself fed, among other things. A cheap phone is vastly cheaper than rent. It's tiresome to see people online act like "If only you would not extravagantly piss away $7/month on a phone, you would be back in housing!!!" Internet access and a phone number are essential for job hunting and an earned income is a common means to get off the street. You can also do online banking and other essential things much easier than dealing with going in person on foot to the bank and so forth.

bondarchuk 6y ago
Nobody's saying that you shouldn't spend money on a phone and save it for housing. Rather the opposite. People are saying that literally everything except housing (and healthcare) is so cheap compared to housing (and healthcare) that inflation measures (which typically exclude housing and healthcare) are pretty much useless.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  This is the line I was responding to: but if you can't afford to have a roof over your head I'd argue the smartphone is irrelevant. A phone and tablet and internet access were essential to my ability to cope and eventually get back into housing. They aren't irrelevant. If you want to argue we need to do a much better job of making housing something people can afford, I totally agree. If you want to argue that homeless people just are supposed to entirely cease to exist and not care about anything people in homes care about or something....no. That absolutely doesn't work as an argument. The internet is a really massively helpful thing for people who are homeless.
  - bondarchuk 6y ago
    Seems to me like we are secretly all in agreement but people are misinterpreting p1necone. Whatever.
  - rhines 6y ago
    I think what they mean is that if you can't afford shelter, it's little comfort to be able to afford a phone. Yes, the phone may be a tool that can help you find shelter, and it may help with coping with your situation and finding other opportunities, but in the end you're still trying to get shelter. If you could afford a home initially, you wouldn't need the phone to help you get one. So no one here is arguing that homeless people shouldn't have phones or internet or anything like that, rather they're arguing that we'd have better housing opportunities if shelter was what had become so cheap, rather than phones. So measuring inflation based on the prices of non-critical goods is fine if you already own a house, but it fails to reflect reality for people who are struggling to make rent.