This is a common thought, but it can be awfully misleading. First, anything that doesn't have a recurring charge -- like the suit and the iPod -- is something

This is a common thought, but it can be awfully misleading. First, anything that doesn't have a recurring charge -- like the suit and the iPod -- is something that may well have been bought when they had a higher income level. Second, if you're looking for work today -- even outside of the tech sector -- not having a phone is very often not an option. Prospective employers need to be able to reach you and vice-versa, and if you're a temp worker or day laborer you need to be able to get that phone message very fast. If you're homeless a mobile phone may be your only realistic option. Why not a cheaper phone than a smartphone? Even if you're poor, you may still want email and text messages and web browsing; email is close to a necessity in America today, web browsing is immensely useful, and that smartphone may also be your only source of entertainment. I think HN-ers may also tend to think of "smartphone" as implying "$200+ device and $100/mo bill," but it's pretty easy to get a $50 Android or Lumia phone and a $50-60/mo plan these days. Last but not least, IIRC the article suggested the "suits and smartphones" types were people who weren't homeless yet, but whose rents had increased to a point where they were having trouble affording food. Someone making $20 an hour, way over minimum wage, would gross about $40K a year and net about $2500 a month -- they'd be lucky if "only" 75% of that was going to rent (assuming they'd started renting a few years ago when that was remotely possible). But they'd be making way too much to qualify for any government assistance like food stamps (SNAP).