4 ms·

Am I missing something? From the article: "At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone.

Am I missing something? From the article: "At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone." (emphasis mine) This is a family "where money is tight"?! Whatever point the article is trying to make about the "digital divide" is obscured if they believe that a poor family is one with two computers, two game consoles, and where each kid has his/her own cell phone.

carsongross 14y ago
And that, my friends, is the miracle of capitalism.
- cagenut 14y ago
  the miracle being we can have all the electronics we want but not healthcare
  - adventureful 14y ago
    In which families spend large sums of money on cell phone contracts, DirecTV plans, video games, loading up on debt with high interest to be good consumers of 60" televisions, and eating out regularly, but won't save money to buy health insurance.
    - cagenut 14y ago
      The math on that doesn't even remotely add up. A single months COBRA for a family of four could buy most of what you listed. Fully private/non-cobra would be even more, assuming they could even get it.
      - adventureful 14y ago
        A family of three can get reasonable health insurance for $500 / month depending on how comprehensive you want it and how low you want your deductible. I see middle class Americans blowing their money on $30,000 vehicles they don't need, and running their credit cards bills to the moon at 10%+ interest rates. People have forgotten that health insurance was never designed to cover sore throats. It was designed for catastrophic coverage. Not to be used when you sprain your ankle, but when you get cancer. When I was 25 years old I was able to get a very good HSA for close to $100 / month. It had a $2,000 deductible, and was not to be used for a stubbed toe, it was for a severe health scenario (thus the "insurance" part, just like car insurance, designed for serious accidents, not a rock chipping your paint). The HSA paid into a tax free account that could cover things like a stubbed toe (tax free so long as it was properly used for health related items). A smart phone contract for three people will put you at $175 to $250 depending. DirecTV is commonly $100 / month if you want much on the setup. Look up how much your typical family can save by not eating out. It's not far off at all to say that a family of three can save $750 to $1,000 / month by driving cheaper vehicles, living in small homes, dropping the crazy cell phone plans, dropping the hyper expensive DirecTV plans, and not eating out. Oh but of course that's unreasonable, that people not live beyond their means. The average white middle class male in America earns $60,000 per year. That person and his wife can EASILY slash enough out of their budget to pay for health insurance. EASILY. The whole point is: Americans have been extraordinarily irresponsible over the last 30 years. Instead of saving, they've spent themselves into oblivion. Affording health insurance is trivially easy for the middle class, but they've chosen not to be responsible. Previous generations didn't make the same stupid fiscal decisions. They bought cheap vehicles and homes half as big, and didn't use credit card debt to live. The only legitimate argument for socialized medicine is for poor people and scenarios where someone has a pre-existing condition.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    There's a working market for electronics.
mistermann 14y ago
Perhaps money is now tight (nothing left for a contingency fund or retirement savings), because they spend so much on frivolous amusements?
halo 14y ago
Amortised across 5 years, that's less than £10/wk (2 laptops, a 360, a Wii, a bunch of games and a phone with credit can be had for considerably less than £2600). Technology is a very cost-effective form of entertainment. Much better value than going on holiday, going to restaurants or going to the cinema.
- jerf 14y ago
  I find it vastly preferable to go the other direction, converting weekly or monthly expenses into annualized sums. £10/week doesn't sound like much... but £520/year is 2.6% of the post-tax annual median income in the UK [1]. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad way to spend that money, just that you're better off thinking of it is as 2.6% of annual income. It's too easy to £10/week this, £10/week that your way into overspending, but add up 4 of them and see it as 10% of your income and you start to take notice. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post_tax_household_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Po... , with 20K at the 50th percentile
- enko 14y ago
  > Much better value than going on holiday It might be cheaper, sure, but whether it's better value is questionable, especially when you define value as being the best return on your use of time, ultimately the most precious resource you have.
sneak 14y ago
Second-hand workable laptop: ca $100 each X box 360: $200 (new) Wii: $150 (new) Phone: $20 Also, consider that it's been many years since the 360 and the Wii came out - these purchases could all have occurred in different years. These things just aren't the luxury items they used to be.
zerostar07 14y ago
'tight' doesn't mean the family is formally poor. Plus there are very few expensive gadgets anymore.
nhebb 14y ago
You're assuming logical spending habits.
garethsprice 14y ago
The poor should eat gruel and play with things they build out of discarded refuse, or they're not poor! Seriously though, children are ridiculously expensive with their need to be entertained. If you're in the inner city then having your kids indoors playing video games is cheaper/safer/better for society than letting them roam the streets. Even if you purchased all that stuff new it'd be around $1,500. Given 10 hours a day consumption (from the article) and a device lifespan of 3 years then the cost is around 10 cents/hour to keep your kid off the streets, off drugs and engaged in some kind of activity. Compare to going to the movies (guessing at $10/hr), after-school clubs ($2/hr), summer camp ($1.50/hr), renting a DVD ($0.50/hr), smoking weed ($20/hr) or reading a book ($1/hr) then video games are one of the most cost effective ways for poor people to entertain children.

carsongross 14y ago

And that, my friends, is the miracle of capitalism.

cagenut 14y ago
the miracle being we can have all the electronics we want but not healthcare
- adventureful 14y ago
  In which families spend large sums of money on cell phone contracts, DirecTV plans, video games, loading up on debt with high interest to be good consumers of 60" televisions, and eating out regularly, but won't save money to buy health insurance.
  - cagenut 14y ago
    The math on that doesn't even remotely add up. A single months COBRA for a family of four could buy most of what you listed. Fully private/non-cobra would be even more, assuming they could even get it.
    - adventureful 14y ago
      A family of three can get reasonable health insurance for $500 / month depending on how comprehensive you want it and how low you want your deductible. I see middle class Americans blowing their money on $30,000 vehicles they don't need, and running their credit cards bills to the moon at 10%+ interest rates. People have forgotten that health insurance was never designed to cover sore throats. It was designed for catastrophic coverage. Not to be used when you sprain your ankle, but when you get cancer. When I was 25 years old I was able to get a very good HSA for close to $100 / month. It had a $2,000 deductible, and was not to be used for a stubbed toe, it was for a severe health scenario (thus the "insurance" part, just like car insurance, designed for serious accidents, not a rock chipping your paint). The HSA paid into a tax free account that could cover things like a stubbed toe (tax free so long as it was properly used for health related items). A smart phone contract for three people will put you at $175 to $250 depending. DirecTV is commonly $100 / month if you want much on the setup. Look up how much your typical family can save by not eating out. It's not far off at all to say that a family of three can save $750 to $1,000 / month by driving cheaper vehicles, living in small homes, dropping the crazy cell phone plans, dropping the hyper expensive DirecTV plans, and not eating out. Oh but of course that's unreasonable, that people not live beyond their means. The average white middle class male in America earns $60,000 per year. That person and his wife can EASILY slash enough out of their budget to pay for health insurance. EASILY. The whole point is: Americans have been extraordinarily irresponsible over the last 30 years. Instead of saving, they've spent themselves into oblivion. Affording health insurance is trivially easy for the middle class, but they've chosen not to be responsible. Previous generations didn't make the same stupid fiscal decisions. They bought cheap vehicles and homes half as big, and didn't use credit card debt to live. The only legitimate argument for socialized medicine is for poor people and scenarios where someone has a pre-existing condition.
- gyardley 14y ago
  There's a working market for electronics.

mistermann 14y ago

Perhaps money is now tight (nothing left for a contingency fund or retirement savings), because they spend so much on frivolous amusements?

halo 14y ago

Amortised across 5 years, that's less than £10/wk (2 laptops, a 360, a Wii, a bunch of games and a phone with credit can be had for considerably less than £2600). Technology is a very cost-effective form of entertainment. Much better value than going on holiday, going to restaurants or going to the cinema.

jerf 14y ago
I find it vastly preferable to go the other direction, converting weekly or monthly expenses into annualized sums. £10/week doesn't sound like much... but £520/year is 2.6% of the post-tax annual median income in the UK [1]. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad way to spend that money, just that you're better off thinking of it is as 2.6% of annual income. It's too easy to £10/week this, £10/week that your way into overspending, but add up 4 of them and see it as 10% of your income and you start to take notice. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post_tax_household_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Po... , with 20K at the 50th percentile
enko 14y ago
> Much better value than going on holiday It might be cheaper, sure, but whether it's better value is questionable, especially when you define value as being the best return on your use of time, ultimately the most precious resource you have.

sneak 14y ago

Second-hand workable laptop: ca $100 each X box 360: $200 (new) Wii: $150 (new) Phone: $20 Also, consider that it's been many years since the 360 and the Wii came out - these purchases could all have occurred in different years. These things just aren't the luxury items they used to be.

zerostar07 14y ago

'tight' doesn't mean the family is formally poor. Plus there are very few expensive gadgets anymore.

nhebb 14y ago

You're assuming logical spending habits.

garethsprice 14y ago

The poor should eat gruel and play with things they build out of discarded refuse, or they're not poor! Seriously though, children are ridiculously expensive with their need to be entertained. If you're in the inner city then having your kids indoors playing video games is cheaper/safer/better for society than letting them roam the streets. Even if you purchased all that stuff new it'd be around $1,500. Given 10 hours a day consumption (from the article) and a device lifespan of 3 years then the cost is around 10 cents/hour to keep your kid off the streets, off drugs and engaged in some kind of activity. Compare to going to the movies (guessing at $10/hr), after-school clubs ($2/hr), summer camp ($1.50/hr), renting a DVD ($0.50/hr), smoking weed ($20/hr) or reading a book ($1/hr) then video games are one of the most cost effective ways for poor people to entertain children.