8 ms·

Internet connections cost poor people nothing in 1970 because they weren't necessary and could happily live their lives without one. The real item we're lookin

by efaref 5y ago

Internet connections cost poor people nothing in 1970 because they weren't necessary and could happily live their lives without one. The real item we're looking at here is *communication*, which was cheap: the stamp you needed to send in the form for your taxes cost a few cents. You could get away with using payphones for the few phone calls you absolutely needed to make. In 2021, internet connections and cellphones are both expensive and mandatory if you want to participate in modern society. Your minimum wage job probably texts you your schedule, so if you don't have a cell phone, you can't even work. Many government forms have been moved online, with legacy options either unavailable or poorly services. Payphones are all but gone. If you're lucky to have a local library then maybe you can get some time on a decrepit computer with slow internet access, but the majority of the poor rely on their cellphone for internet access.

dan-robertson 5y ago
An internet connected smartphone is not equivalent to the postal service (plus a pay phone or landline I guess). It may be that you use a computer or something else for the things that most people use smartphones for, wand so don’t realise how much they cover. You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth. But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant
- sirspacey 5y ago
  I’m curious - what personal experience with poverty in the USA do you have? I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- markvdb 5y ago
  Poverty is not just about absolute purchasing power adjusted for location and time. There is also very much an unspoken social context, sometimes even codified into law. In 1970, obviously nobody expected you to own a smartphone because it didn't exist. Noone had access to such a thing. Not so in 2021 western Europe. The example very much holds in that sense. You could fully participate in society without that expense. I'm not speaking of keeping up with the Joneses here. I'm speaking of pervasive implicitly embedded demands on people's lifestyles. What do you think about the effects of the way housing insulation requirements are often written? What do you think happens when you invite someone to a party at your place in the countryside that is only reasonably reachable by car? One of the best ways to get a feel for this kind of thing is to go live in an area with significantly lower median purchasing power for some time, a place where the average trustworthy hard-working person has difficulties making ends meet. I've done so. Even if I lived a lifestyle of relative luxury myself, it helped widen my perspective. I can absolutely recommend the experience!
  - dhruval 5y ago
    Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game) The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false. Can apply this to any technological advance. So for eg. in the 1800s no one expected you to own a car. So the invention and subsequent technology driven deflation of car prices didn’t make everyone’s lives better.
    - markvdb 5y ago
      > Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game) The two are not opposed. There is significant overlap significantly in many ways, even in the way government treats the very definition of poverty. In most countries, you'll find that poverty is defined as a percentage of median income. Let me try to rephrase to make this more tangible. The minimum of things and services I need to procure to get minimally acceptable social inclusion is lower in some contexts than in others. 1970 versus 2021. Silicon Valley versus rural Latvia. I hope you get the point. > The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false. I was certainly not claiming that! Cell phones or cars can clearly enrich the lives of those able to afford them. Their existence also creates a potential gap between haves and have-nots though. Or to formulate it more sharply, you couldn't be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 1970. You can be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 2021. Does that mean a cell phone is a bad thing? Of course not!
- handrous 5y ago
  Affording Internet access and a cell phone is no problem for me, but the only reason I have either is because they're de facto required for my work, for my spouse's work, and for our kids' school. I do use it for other stuff since I have it anyway, but I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy. Stuff like streaming services only makes sense because I already have to pay that "tax"—it'd be way cheaper to just buy all the media I want otherwise. $140/mo + (cost of streaming services) buys a lot of movies, books, TV shows, and music. Overall, I think having the Internet makes my life significantly worse except for how it makes it possible for my family to participate in the modern education and the modern job market. It's a benefit mainly because you're shut out from things that previously did not require it if you don't have it. [EDIT] ~$140/mo is my home Internet service and roughly what it costs for Internet service on two cell phone lines. I'd probably keep phone + SMS service even without the societal requirement to have Internet service.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy * for most people they'd be paying for the internet/cell phone regardless of whether it's required for their job or not. I doubt the pandemic pushed up internet adoption rate by much. * $140/month seems to be on the high side. are you really paying that much for the bare essentials? Or are you paying for gigabit home internet and a 25GB/month cell plan?
fundad 5y ago
Um good luck finding the car of your choice these days. Even before pando/trade war an in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots. We can’t argue that quality of life is sooo much better when production is such a mess. The only reason we hear the complaints is because of quality of life. People with money can handle $1 more for an order of pretzel nuggets but make them wait and extra 2 minutes for it and the labor shortage is all over the news.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots. America's model of making a bunch of random models and shipping them out to sit on lots in the hope someone wants that model is bizarre. In most other countries you order exactly what you want and they build it.
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    It is also in part due to the explicit tie in of the dealership system by which we buy cars. Dealerships can't go away because they have baked the law around them. Automotive manufacturers are forbidden from building their own stores. Though this is a state by state issue, and Tesla is the manufacturer skirting this rule.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      We also have franchised dealers in the UK. They have show-rooms and help you design the model you want and sort finance if you’ve got limited funds, and then they get it built and shipped. Same thing - only difference is they don’t have cars in stock. It’s done on demand.
  - redisman 5y ago
    That’s what I did with my new car just a few weeks ago (Ford). Built and ordered online. People like shopping in person so it makes sense to have that “mall” like experience. And having the car available to test drive on the spot must make for more sales

by efaref 5y ago

dan-robertson 5y ago

An internet connected smartphone is not equivalent to the postal service (plus a pay phone or landline I guess). It may be that you use a computer or something else for the things that most people use smartphones for, wand so don’t realise how much they cover. You also didn’t mention having to go to the library (distance + fuel/car/travel costs + more time) for information, finding jobs from newspaper advertisements or word of mouth. But the claim I was disagreeing with is that most Americans are worse off now than in the 70s and the description “most Americans” does not match the sort of very poor people whom you describe. So I feel this comment is only partially relevant

sirspacey 5y ago
I’m curious - what personal experience with poverty in the USA do you have? I’ve found that shapes people’s perspective on the topic significantly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
markvdb 5y ago
Poverty is not just about absolute purchasing power adjusted for location and time. There is also very much an unspoken social context, sometimes even codified into law. In 1970, obviously nobody expected you to own a smartphone because it didn't exist. Noone had access to such a thing. Not so in 2021 western Europe. The example very much holds in that sense. You could fully participate in society without that expense. I'm not speaking of keeping up with the Joneses here. I'm speaking of pervasive implicitly embedded demands on people's lifestyles. What do you think about the effects of the way housing insulation requirements are often written? What do you think happens when you invite someone to a party at your place in the countryside that is only reasonably reachable by car? One of the best ways to get a feel for this kind of thing is to go live in an area with significantly lower median purchasing power for some time, a place where the average trustworthy hard-working person has difficulties making ends meet. I've done so. Even if I lived a lifestyle of relative luxury myself, it helped widen my perspective. I can absolutely recommend the experience!
- dhruval 5y ago
  Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game) The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false. Can apply this to any technological advance. So for eg. in the 1800s no one expected you to own a car. So the invention and subsequent technology driven deflation of car prices didn’t make everyone’s lives better.
  - markvdb 5y ago
    > Seems like you are talking about social inequality (a zero sum game) vs poverty (a non zero sum game) The two are not opposed. There is significant overlap significantly in many ways, even in the way government treats the very definition of poverty. In most countries, you'll find that poverty is defined as a percentage of median income. Let me try to rephrase to make this more tangible. The minimum of things and services I need to procure to get minimally acceptable social inclusion is lower in some contexts than in others. 1970 versus 2021. Silicon Valley versus rural Latvia. I hope you get the point. > The idea that no one was expected to own cell phones so they didn’t enrich our lives is clearly false. I was certainly not claiming that! Cell phones or cars can clearly enrich the lives of those able to afford them. Their existence also creates a potential gap between haves and have-nots though. Or to formulate it more sharply, you couldn't be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 1970. You can be poor because of not being able to afford a cell phone in 2021. Does that mean a cell phone is a bad thing? Of course not!
handrous 5y ago
Affording Internet access and a cell phone is no problem for me, but the only reason I have either is because they're de facto required for my work, for my spouse's work, and for our kids' school. I do use it for other stuff since I have it anyway, but I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy. Stuff like streaming services only makes sense because I already have to pay that "tax"—it'd be way cheaper to just buy all the media I want otherwise. $140/mo + (cost of streaming services) buys a lot of movies, books, TV shows, and music. Overall, I think having the Internet makes my life significantly worse except for how it makes it possible for my family to participate in the modern education and the modern job market. It's a benefit mainly because you're shut out from things that previously did not require it if you don't have it. [EDIT] ~$140/mo is my home Internet service and roughly what it costs for Internet service on two cell phone lines. I'd probably keep phone + SMS service even without the societal requirement to have Internet service.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I absolutely see it as a ~$140/mo tax on participating in the economy * for most people they'd be paying for the internet/cell phone regardless of whether it's required for their job or not. I doubt the pandemic pushed up internet adoption rate by much. * $140/month seems to be on the high side. are you really paying that much for the bare essentials? Or are you paying for gigabit home internet and a 25GB/month cell plan?

fundad 5y ago

Um good luck finding the car of your choice these days. Even before pando/trade war an in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots. We can’t argue that quality of life is sooo much better when production is such a mess. The only reason we hear the complaints is because of quality of life. People with money can handle $1 more for an order of pretzel nuggets but make them wait and extra 2 minutes for it and the labor shortage is all over the news.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> in-demand model took weeks or months while other cars sit on lots. America's model of making a bunch of random models and shipping them out to sit on lots in the hope someone wants that model is bizarre. In most other countries you order exactly what you want and they build it.
- throwaway946513 5y ago
  It is also in part due to the explicit tie in of the dealership system by which we buy cars. Dealerships can't go away because they have baked the law around them. Automotive manufacturers are forbidden from building their own stores. Though this is a state by state issue, and Tesla is the manufacturer skirting this rule.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    We also have franchised dealers in the UK. They have show-rooms and help you design the model you want and sort finance if you’ve got limited funds, and then they get it built and shipped. Same thing - only difference is they don’t have cars in stock. It’s done on demand.
- redisman 5y ago
  That’s what I did with my new car just a few weeks ago (Ford). Built and ordered online. People like shopping in person so it makes sense to have that “mall” like experience. And having the car available to test drive on the spot must make for more sales