Slashdot Mirror
Low-Income Users Latch On To iPhone
narramissic writes "The iPhone crowd is still dominated by affluent males between the ages of 18 and 35, but in a series of surveys ending in August, ComScore found that iPhone purchases grew fastest among people with annual household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000. The growth rate in this group was 48 percent, compared with just 16 percent among people with incomes above $100,000. And the down economy isn't going to turn this trend around, says ComScore Mobile analyst Jen Wu. 'I don't see there's going to be much of a slowdown, just because wireless devices are so much more of a necessity than they used to be,' Wu said."
In other iPhone news, an anonymous reader points out a NYTimes story about the rise in car-related applications and uses for the iPhone, which points out that programmers are just beginning to "appreciate just what can be done with an iPhone and other advanced cellphones that know where they are and just how quickly they are going someplace else." Another iPhone story mentions that "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser."
Could the free advertising it gets from rap music be a partial cause of this?
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Whilst I think it's a silly clause the Apple SDK license agreement for the iPhone has always prohibited developing a web browser for the iPhone so if the Opera team went ahead and wasted their time porting to the iPhone then it's their own stupid fault.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
The high cost forced data plan + voice plan is a trun off me. I want to get S60 based phone running Symbian OS with WIFI and just use WIFI I have ATT DSL so I can use there hotspots for free as well as not being forced to use 1 app store I can get apps from any one with out the app lock in.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
... ComScore found that iPhone purchases grew fastest among people with annual household incomes between $25,000 and $50,000.
Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money. If or when the Democrats get control next week, we can see more money going down the poor people money pit: sales of consumer electronics, junk food, fast food, Walmart junk, etc... will all increase. But yet, when something that would reduce conspicuous consumption among folks who really need to save and develop some sort of fiscal discipline, it is shot down as helping the "rich". By the way, most middle and upper class folks need to develop some fiscal responsibility themselves. I've dealt with a few folks who were making mid six figures who can't pay their mortgages now because they've lost their jobs or businesses tanked.
What could do what I say? Ah yes, that's it, the Fair Tax - taxing consumption instead of savings and earning as the current ridiculous system does.
So get one?
What's holding you back.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Exactly! And as for this...
'I don't see there's going to be much of a slowdown, just because wireless devices are so much more of a necessity than they used to be,' Wu said.
Yeah, until a hard recession/depression redefines "necessity".
As opposed to all those wise people like me who lived well within our means and invested in stocks (!) and earned negative real returns on savings accounts? Yeah, that worked out real well for us, didn't it.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
And this article seems also to be viral marketing. "YES!!! You too can afford an iPhone!!!"
The iPhone crowd is still dominated by affluent males between the ages of 18 and 35
Those of us who don't bask in the glow of all things Apple might say they're afflicted as well as affluent.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The iPhone is comming to be widely regarded as "bling". You always see more bling among low-income people.
Caveat Utilitor
I don't want the same phone that some poorie has. That's the reason I own a MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro. No poories allowed!
I wish Barack's healthcare plan had that kind of range!
Since when is making 50k a year low income?
should people who may be on wellfare be purchasing iphones?
"Fastest Growing" is a meaningless statistic without context, and TFA doesn't give much of that. For example, it may be the fastest growing because the other income groups rushed out to buy first, while the lower income groups saved up.
Similarly, it could be the fastest growing because it 'grew' from 100 people to 148 people. Still a meager total, but explosive growth.
Since obama is going to give everyone $500, and since you can't put your kids through college or buy a new house with that, I am going to buy an iphone with it. America is great
Thats why most appear to have a lower household income than you might otherwise think.
As opposed to all those wise people like me who lived well within our means and invested in stocks (!) and earned negative real returns on savings accounts? Yeah, that worked out real well for us, didn't it.
Are you retiring in the next year to two? If not, them you have nothing to worry about. (2009 and most of 2010 will be in recession)
If you hang in there and don't cash out, you will be whole again and maybe, if there's another boom afterward, actually end up ahead.
Now before you get really down on the system, keep in mind, you'd be worse off (less money, less control, watching much of your money paying for shit you don't want, and money going to the politicians' buddies) if the Government took care of everything for you.
Stocks can be risky. I had my money all in bonds and didn't lose anything. (excepting inflation/currency valuations)
I'm a first year graduate student in physics, and about 1/3 of my class have iPhones. We're definitely low-income -- Teaching Assistant pay is ~$14k/year.
Usually when the phrase "low income" comes up, people think poor people in the inner city or whatnot. Here, I bet low income mostly means students and the likes. I think owning an iPhone is silly on our pay, but at least we have decent future income potential (better than most low income people), so it may not really be beyond our means.
And who ever considered the iPhone to be a necessity?
I have a wireless device. It cost me $1 when it came with my plan.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Horrible decisions made from the financial standpoint.
Still I am curious, how many of these people in the income brackets live at home, did not list their spouse's income as part of it, or share a house/apartment which could minimize their income needs?
I know it seems heartless to some but a lot of people just don't get ahead because of their own actions. Go by an apartment complex and your bound to see many cars that make you shake your head. A great example is where I work. In our own support staff we have two guys with expensive cars, like a fairly current Mercedes or year old BMW 5 series. Throw in the cool cell phone and I just sigh and walk away when they bitch about not having sufficient money to do things other people do. Yet these same clueless individuals will buy into whatever politicians tell them, specifically that somehow its not their fault and its not fair. They really believe this to be true!
An article in the AJC earlier in the year was showing the plight of the homeless in Atlanta, the impact of the story fell on its face as all but two of those pictured had a cell phone - a few were using them when the picture was taken.
What it comes down to is that people fail to set proper priorities. They refuse to understand that they just can't have everything unless they have the real means to do so. Yet instead of spending that very same wasted money on improving their means they squander it forever setting themselves back. We used to be a society which tried to help each other out but that fell by the wayside when many began to demand that help without making any sacrifice themselves.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
No you can't. All software that wants to do something "dangerous" on you S60-mobile, like setting the clock, or accessing contact data, MUST be digitally signed. That's great (really, I do like the platform security), but the only Certificate Authority for this is... Symbian. So in the end SYMBIAN decides what may and may not run on YOUR phone.
Yes, Symbian has "open signed", a cheezy web-interface where you can sign unsigned freeware, so it can be installed on YOUR phone, but alas, Symbian is in control here as well.
Don't let the claims of "openess" and "open source" fool you!
$50k/year is considered "low income," now?
and you won't land on boardwalk and owe Apple all your money. Microsoft had the monopoly, Apple does not.
just because wireless devices are so much more of a necessity than they used to be
Wireless is not a necessity. People may feel that they need to be "connected" to the world 24/7 but they really don't.
What could do what I say? Ah yes, that's it, the Fair Tax - taxing consumption instead of savings and earning as the current ridiculous system does.
Well, don't come whining to me if your government introduces such a tax, and you end up worse off - just like everyone else has under such a taxation system. I speak from comparatively recent experience since a consumption tax was introduced here in Australia in 2000 and the effect on most household purses was almost immediate.
Sure, if you can show me a government that is prepared to stop slugging you for income tax as well, your suggestion might (possibly) stand up, but good luck with that.
That aside, your remark that Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money has to be one of the more repugnant statements I have read on Slashdot in quite a while, and is symptomatic of what is wrong with the attitude of our administrations. Sometimes people are poor because of the hand they have been dealt.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
ANYBODY can live beyond their means; it has little to do with income level (20-50K in this case). To be honest I think there are many more people who live in the upper bracket who have a ton of debt than the simple guy who shleps to work every morning. The difference is that the the wealthy have many ways of concealing, expunging, deferring or otherwise spreading their debt around while the regular guy simply goes without something to make due for his or her extravagance. I also think most people know fully well what kind of debt they are getting into but chose to ignore it or put it off.
I must also add that an iPhone is hardly a huge investment. If I can afford it on my low income 50k salary most other people with a job can afford one too.
Maybe it's because low-income folk typically don't hold jobs that require a smartphone where said jobs have IT departments that say you can have a BlackBerry or a BlackBerry?
I do agree with a previous poster that a lot of it is probably the American habit of living beyond their means as well.
Antitrust lawsuit, anybody?
Jesus, no. Please go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Please help metamoderate.
It's not that much money. It comes out to about $600 extra (I've got a student discount) over a period of two years compared to what I'd pay for a normal phone ($200 for the iphone plus $400 for the data plan). I'm a graduate student and get paid less than 25k, but it's easily in my range. If you've got a wife and kids, then yes, it's probably a bad idea to get it, but if you're single 25k-50k is enough to live comfortably and still buy cool gadgets.
So your solution is to bring those who sell them the junk to power?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
They don't have credit cards in europe?
I was asked about Opera not being allowed on the iPhone yesterday. My immediate gut reaction was that Apple was being a douche. All my instincts cry out that programmers should be able to put anything they want out there and let the market decide.
I got to thinking about it though. To the best of my knowledge, there is no global preference in place to set which apps respond to which data sources. What I mean is, when I click on a link in an email, Safari opens the page. When I click on a phone number in google maps, an email or a web page, the phone app opens it. Same thing for music, podcasts, videos, etc. You get the idea.
This keeps the phone simple, intuitive and predictable. All the other apps I install are all for doing some *other* specific task than what is provided by the core applications/functionality. What would happen then if I loaded Opera, Konqueror, Firefox, etc. on the phone. Which one would open my web links? Obviously the one specified in my preferences (which don't exist). What if I wanted to open this particular link with FireFox this time? I can't right-click and say open link with. Do I have to quit the program, open preferences and temporarily select Firefox?
I realize that it would be rather simple for Apple to address these issues and add this functionality, but once that camel's nose is under the tent you are now dealing with people demanding a preference and underlying mechanism for modifying the behavior of all the core functionalities. I want Skype to open when I touch a phone number in an email or on a web page (or in my address book), but I only want it to come up when I'm not connected to wireless. When I'm on wireless I want MyVOIP to make the calls. This also applies to which app you want sending emails, text messages, etc.
While the geek in me can get into this sort of configurability, I've already seen the whole other level of complexity added to the preference system with just the addition of push and Exchange connectivity. If users had to go through page after page of preferences just to find the right place to indicate which app they wanted to store their contacts in and have that tie into their Exchange push connection, it would be a nightmare.
I don't think the masses are ready for that or even really want it. That sort of complexity will make the iPhone just like every other smart phone out there. My coworker was bragging up his WinMobile-based smartphone at lunch the other day. He was saying it could do so much more than the iPhone. I don't doubt it, but my god, the gyrations he had to go through to tweak a setting to get it to do things. Just setting up a new wireless connection or a new IMAP email account seemed ridiculously complex. He said it was just due to the fact that he'd downloaded other email apps and tools and that each one had a different place to set up some of the preferences.
Is there a place for a mobile device that lets a geek configure every possible thing and choose exactly which software performed what tasks? Absolutely. That place should rightly be filled by Android and matched with the particular hardware design that that geek has chosen for their particular needs/fetish. I don't think the iPhone is where it belongs.
It may be the height of irony but I can see the iPhone becoming the phone people refer to when they say "Dammit, all I want in my smart-phone is to be able to make calls, surf the web, email, mapping, music, games and movies! I don't want to have to mess with all that other crap." in the same way purists today say "I just want a phone that makes calls."
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
A few months ago, I decided that the iPhone looked pretty cool. An unlocked/jailbroken iPhone seemed like a fun development platform (touchscreen interface, accelerometer, GPS, decent SDK, and interesting application possibilities).
Now, if somebody can afford an iPhone, it's probably me. I make decent money (more than "$25000 to $50000"), I don't have any consumer debt, I keep my monthly expenses to minimum, and I save/invest like a fiend (currently working towards buying a house).
But when I saw that I would have to sign up for an expensive monthly plan, I decided against getting an iPhone. I don't have a desire to tie up $2400 (or more) over the next two years just because I want to play with a new toy.
Instead, I put aside $20 out of my weekly budget for a few months (I took it out of my "having fun" budget category). As a happy coincidence, Apple refreshed the line before I was ready to buy. That dropped the price on previous generation iPod Touch models. I picked up a first-gen 8GB model for about $60 off the normal Apple Store price.
The best part? I was absolutely right. It's incredibly fun to program for the iPod Touch. I made a good purchase (*purchase*, folks, not an investment-- you don't "invest" in consumer electronics). It's missing the GPS receiver and the speaker functionality, but I can deal with that.
2 months at $80 per month, versus 24 months at $100 per month (or more). How difficult is *that* math?
Yeah, I didn't get cell service out of the deal, but I can get cheaper plans that better suit my needs elsewhere, anyway.
It's possible to buy this sort of stuff and be financially literate. It's just that most people tend to sign their lives away for the latest toy. We've stopped looking at the price tag, and started looking at the nice guy from the store credit department.
It's not wrong to occasionally get a toy, but being able to afford "easy monthly payments" for a toy is not the same as being able to afford the toy itself.
This story concurs with my own observation; I take the Broad Street line in Philly from Center City and go pretty far north every day; there are many apparently low-income people with iPhones and iPod Touches. It actually amazes me.
But unlike the article, I never thought the iPhone/Touch were chosen based on frugality; rather, I think they are status symbols, vulgar displays of wealth like knock-off designer clothes and cheap bling. There are much cheaper devices, or combination of devices, available.
The article is more like industrial cheer-leading, which apparently concludes that the iPhone has become a necessity. Please!
Normally, I'd wait for a non-AC to make the point, but since you're probably going to get modded up, I'll just have to snuff it out right here:
Are you retiring in the next year to two? If not, them you have nothing to worry about.
Right, because I wasn't planning on using the money in my savings account until I turn 65, is that it?
Okay, so let's just look at the "long-term" savings accounts. Given the recent downturn and the still-pathetic earnings yields, the stock market over -- yes, the long term -- will probably return 5% nominal, since it first has to make up the ~40% downturn. (The 10-year S&P fund return was 4.5%/year *before* the recent downturn, and even that isn't enough to cover the taxes+inflation+volatility. Even in a tax-advantaged account, that's not a good deal.)
So, in exchange for giving up most of my wealth when it's most valuable to me (at a young age), I get to have a whopping 1% inflation/tax/volatility-adjusted return by investing till 65.
If your personal time discount rate is more than 1% -- which it is for almost everyone -- it just doesn't make sense to save, I am now sadly forced to admit. So frankly, I can't really criticize people who took advantage of way-underprice interested rates to buy durable consumer items. Show me risk-free interest rates (money markets) of 8% real, and I will change my mind.
Btw, anyone notice how the reasoning I'm responding to is sounding more and more these days like, "oh, don't worry man, the roulette wheel can be kinda mean, just keep playing, you'll make up your losses, totally, the guys in suits have it all figured out."
Now before you get really down on the system, keep in mind, you'd be worse off (less money, less control, watching much of your money paying for shit you don't want, and money going to the politicians' buddies) if the Government took care of everything for you.
Relevance to what I actually posted, please?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Considering the average annual household income is around $45,000, this says a lot about Apple.
$25-50,000 annual income isn't "low income". It's middle income, since real median income is about $25-50,000.
--
make install -not war
I thought the same thing (minuscule market share), until I saw that in Q4 2007, the iPhone had a 30% market share of smartphones.
It's since dropped, but I have no idea what's happened since the 3G model came out. Point is...it's not remotely minuscule; they're second or third.
The other point: the market is pretty diversified between Palm, Windows Smartphones, Palm OS, Symbian, and others (like the Sidekick, running Hiptop OS.) If several companies colluded and blocked Opera, THAT would be an anti-trust action.
Please help metamoderate.
He never said black. Bling is a slang term, and is used in the hip hop culture, which as also spread to white, latino, asians and other races. It's now a universal theme. There is no racism here, you're just being over-sensitive.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
As opposed to all those wise people like me who lived well within our means and invested in stocks (!) and earned negative real returns on savings accounts? Yeah, that worked out real well for us, didn't it.
Are you retiring in the next year to two? If not, them you have nothing to worry about.
You just pointed out, then overlooked, one of the biggest reasons to get out while you still can. Boomers are about to start retiring, creating a decade or more of drag on the market when they start trading in 401Ks for Winnebagos. I wish I had a source handy, but I once read boomers accounted for roughly 50% of all 401K dollars out there. Simply put though, you're cherry picking your time periods. There is no such thing as a "can't lose" strategy. Tech was "can't lose" wasn't it. Housing was "can't lose" wasn't it? Long term is not a "can't lose" strategy as you would suggest. Anyone who had money in the market long term between 1964 and 1984 could tell you that.
If you bank on this being over in a year or two, you will regret it. If you're smart, you'll get your cash out before the boomers get what's left.
Holy hell! I hear some of these $50k/yr povs are allowed to go to movies, go on dates, and go out to eat. Irresponsible assholes, right?
This study is leaving out very important details. How big are these households? I bet they are not single parents with four children. They are most likely young singles or couples just out of college, which is the likely to demographic to enjoy tech toys anyhow. Most of my engineer friends made within that income bracket just out of college. If you live in a city with decent housing costs (where I live, you can buy a house for $800 / month), you can easily afford an iPhone, a mortgage, a car payment, health insurance and still save for retirement.
What!?! How can this group afford the monthly charges? I just checked the AT&T site http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/specials/iphone-info.jsp and saw that the minimum monthly charge is $70/month, plus the $200 outlay for the phone itself. There is simply no way I could afford this while paying for taxes, mortgage, utilities, food, gas, clothing, college tuitions and home and car maintenance, but then I try to live within my means. Next up, government bailout for iPhone owners ...
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
People are suggesting that the "gangstah" (read: Rap videos, MTV, BET) culture values expensive 'things,' be it nice cars, diamonds, designer clothing... The problem is, many (not all) of the people who cling onto this culture cannot afford such things, resorting to being irresponsible with money (not putting food on the table, not saving for college, buying an iphone instead of paying rent).
It is not a race thing- it is a culture thing- whites, blacks,hispanics, asians, whatever. It's a different culture with different values. I think it's irresponsible, stupid, and so obnoxious... but who am I to judge.
You're probably right that these low incomes indicate college students. But is it so hard to believe that a 'fab ghetto style-4evah' guy/girl making 25k/yr who buys 2k of bling a year isn't also buying an iPhone (which has the annual cost of nearly double a traditional cell)?
Low-income isn't black. The people who automatically get defensive about race when talking about income issues are the racists.
But then again, I'm just a little whitey from a suburb in Maine.
"If you want to be rich, sell to the poor. If you want to be poor, sell to the rich."
Task Mangler
Here in Pennsylvania, said "rich liberal elitists" are all running around with iPhones and Ammo Clips on the belts, clinging to their guns, while saying the rosary,... ;-)
That subject line applies to you, not to me. Plenty of poor white people go for bling... So who has jumped to (racist) conclusions?
:)
Caveat Utilitor
It's easy to be smart with money when you have a lot of it, you have more choices. Compare the price per ounce of orange soda vs orange juice sometime. Healthy food costs more than unhealthy food, that's why you see all those slender affluent women in the suburbs (plus they have the money and time to excercise) but when you head down to less affluent areas you see more overweight women. No money for healthy food, no money or time for regular pilates and yoga.
Did you know that the government requires "food stamp" (they're now debit cards though) recipients to take a class in how to spend their food dollars before they get their benefit? They say things like "buy healthy food, buy fresh fruits and vegetables, don't buy junk." but every recipient knows that if they followed that advice their benefit wouldn't last the month.
It's folks like you that cause politicians to talk about helping the forgotten middle class? How can the middle class be forgotten when everyone talks about them and wants to cater to them. It's the poor and lower class that are truly forgotten. When's the last time you ever heard a politician say, "hey let's index the minimum wage to inflation and the CPI and make it retroactive to 1980" or "Let's increase the "food stamp" benefit so that people can actually afford to follow the food buying advice we give them." or "Hey lets tighten up labor laws so we don't have grocery chains hiring teenagers because they can: pay them less, know they're less likely to unionize and are less likely to complain about sexual harassment or bad workplace conditions."
I know a few in that last category. Our household just barely falls into the lower middle class category, but because we're careful we're on track to retire at the age of 55 (comfortably). Save your money people, live cheaply. You'll be very thankful for it later.
Recommended reading: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Article- "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser"
Slashdot- "So what. It's their phone, they can do whatever they want. No one ever said the iPhone would run every app. Uncle Steve is just acting in our best interests"
But what if......
Article- "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Windows Mobile, but Microsoft won't let the company release it because it competes with Microsoft's own IE browser"
Slashdot- "Christ on a cracker! Is there no end to their greed? Apple would never do anything like this! It's my phone! I bought it! I should be able to do whatever I want with it! Information wants to be free! "
That's why I just come here for the girlies....the discussion has just become way too predictable :)
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
The value of your stocks may have gone down, but if you haven't sold them you've lost nothing. If they are worth more than when you bought them but less than they were a year ago, you've made a profit. I doubt you were complaining when the value of your portfolio was being artificially inflated in the bubble.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Sorry, but technology doesn't always make life easier; don't need fluff I won't use.
"jPhone" or iPhone shuffle??
1 button phone: answer/hangup; hold for power
1 slide switch: silent mode; during conversation it turns on speaker mode
Voice recognition: RECITE numbers to dial them
Speaking interface: like voice mail menus- I never want to mess with options so its no big deal to wait for a talking interface whenever I want to setup speed dial or see the last call's number (it does have a tiny screen.)
simple ring sound; if custom just have it record your own with it's mic
Water resistant: sound quality often sucks anyhow
Simple small B&W display; wrist watch like; callerID
2 AAA NiMH batteries: new batteries shouldn't cost more than the phone! (I don't care if I have to swap batteries it doesn't have to charge them; I'm not that lazy...) /. is the wrong place to talk simple but I'm shocked nobody has made a phone that doesn't go in this direction.
At least this is more Star Trek: push button, speak name of person to speak to - and it calls them; perhaps using other people's tracking info you can ask it where somebody is and have it speak an answer as well? It could speak their name when they call (known people only.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I live in a neighbourhood which is rapidly gentrifying - So you have a mix of 'poor' people, middle class and upper-middle class. It's interesting to look at the houses when I walk my dog in the evening - The houses which would be branded as 'poor' - Junk in the yard, unmowed lawn, shabby house, almost always have a 50" flatscreen glowing away in the front room, showing hockey in high-def. Then I go home to my ten year old 28" CRT television with analog cable.
Actually, around here a cellular plan costs about as much as landline with some carriers. Many will throw in a phone with a contract. And a phone *IS* pretty much a necessity these days. When job-seeking, a cellular is even more important. Try to tell potential employers to "only call me after 5:30 PM because I'm home then and otherwise have no available phone" and you're screwed, because 90% of the HR/recruiting departments also tend to work fairly close to a 9-5 and that means be available at the times they call you.
In short, an iPhone is pretty much excessive, but a cellular is pretty important these days.
Orange juice is only marginally better than orange soda, water is free and all your body needs.
If you spend your food $ on tap water, brown rice and dried beans, you'll get far better value for your money than any fast food and far healthier than than the overpackaged "health" foods those rich folk are eating.
In many of these cases the problem is not income, it's debt. Maybe these people are making decent enough coin, but they're not smart enough to live within their means. Often enough people of a lower income may actually *save* more money than them, simply by living more economically.
Everyone I know that have a job that pays over 100K+ gets a nice black berry from there company. Why would they go out and by an IPhoney when they already have a phone that is paid for by their job?
I would think this is also true for most people that work for decent company and is above an entry level position. How else would they be able to keep you on the hook 24/7 ?
So if I haven't sold them and they went down, I haven't lost anything, so how exactly have I made a profit if they are still worth more then when I bought them? Wouldn't I have to sell them in order to make a profit?
Obama would say you're poor @ $50k/yr
McCain would say you're rich @ $50k/yr
What do you mean by "retroactive minimum wage?" It almost sounds like you're talking about hitting up every business for back wages to 1980, which makes no sense at all.
FYI, the Kroger my girlfriend used to work at was unionized, and it still paid crappy wages compared to Publix.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I had no problem eating well when I was a poor college student. For me it was easier to eat well when I was poor because all the pre-made frozen/boxed/canned meals were unaffordable. Now I have to work quite a bit harder to avoid the temptation to simply let Tombstone and friends do all my cooking for me.
The poor people I know who eat like crap don't do it because they can't afford better. They do it because they have no willpower. They not only eat junk food, they eat out for junk food. Nobody who can afford to eat regularly at McDonald's is going to have problems affording healthy food.
And really, I don't buy your argument at all. Eating healthy is harder if you're a lazy poor person. But potatoes, beans, and in-season vegetables are all cheaper than junk food.
Oh, and food stamps? I don't live in an area with a lot of food-stamp recipients. But the last time I saw someone use food stamps at my local grocery store, she was buying two large bottles of Odwalla juice, clocking in at something like $15 total for perhaps half a gallon of juice. Obviously she's having no trouble affording healthy food!
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
let's say I write an app that is so CPU & Screen & power intensive it causes batteries to burst.
yes- you can retort that that is apple's fault-- bad design..
but if it's a known limitation, that they plan for- and work out- and don't exceed the parameters of within their approval process--
and yet someone with a jailbroken phone runs the app-- you don't think apple will get sued when the battery leaks?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
What do you expect in a place where the marketing department is the education caretaker, advertisement the literacy tool of choice and where people are consumers rather than citizens
I don't see it that way. The iPhone is extremely cheap in terms of up-front cost when compared to a laptop computer, and for many people it serves the same purpose, perhaps even better than a laptop would. If you compare the price of the phone data plan with the price of a land line and internet service, the AT&T iPhone is competitive. When you view it as an alternative to a laptop for a household that doesn't have a computer, it makes sense.
It makes even more sense if you think about a small business. Maybe the business already has a desktop PC for keeping the accounts and whatnot, but if the business owner has to travel to make sales, or do other fieldwork, an iPhone can make a lot more sense than a laptop if the needed functions are mostly email, address book, wayfinding, and so forth. Considering that the business traveler is going to need a mobile phone anyway, the iPhone comes out way ahead in total cost of ownership.
When you think of small business in this context think of a landscaping business, roof contractor, tow truck driver, or something like that. Not all people with low incomes are shiftless buffoons sipping from a 40oz of Mickeys on the stoop of their public housing project. Most of them are ordinary working people and many of them are trying to run their own businesses.
I mean making actually indexing the per hour dollar amount to that time period. (That's when the minimum wage really stopped keeping pace with inflation) I'm not talking about assessing back wages. Just bringing the dollar amount in line so that people earning the minimum wage today aren't getting paid effectively less than those earning the minimum wage in 1980, which is what is happening now.
Your girlfriend might still be getting paid horribly but she has more workplace protections than those at Publix do.
While you were comparing the price of orange pop to the orange juice did it occur to you that tap water would be even cheaper? As for your point about teenage employees, well if you can't beat a new member of the work force for the job then something is wrong. Stores don't want to employ that fourteen year old the want that adult with 4-10 years retail experience and who needs to work full time.
The value of your stocks may have gone down, but if you haven't sold them you've lost nothing.
"If you buy stuff on credit, you haven't spent anything until you pay the bill."
Those two statements are logically equivalent. Both have an underlying assumption that at some future time, everything will be hunkey dorey. In no way is this guaranteed. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it didn't recover its real value until 1962. Talk about a long-term investment! Do you have 33 years to wait before you break even?
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
There's a difference between truly poor and "I don't make much money myself but I can always hit up my parents for money or a new computer/car/stereo"
What about everything else? Beans for breakfast? Milk? Bread? Meat products? Fish? Humans are omnivores you know.
You're guilty of extrapolating from one incident and assuming much about her lifestyle. Could have been a one time splurge you know. Would you want to eat beans and rice for every meal every day?
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
You give them too much credit. Another problem is that people who are on welfare, who need help buying groceries, may be buying these phones. Well, we are buying these phones for them in essence. That symptom's disease can be described as "we deserve everything but we don't want to pay for it so let the government help us do everything". Maybe that would be considered financial ignorance or dependence?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
You're guilty of extrapolating from one incident and assuming much about her lifestyle. Could have been a one time splurge you know. Would you want to eat beans and rice for every meal every day?
I would not, but I would never ever spend any money on anything made by Odwalla.
I make close to six figures and I would never even consider spending $15 on juice.
So I don't care if it's a one-time splurge or a regular thing. Either way it says nothing good about her. From the poor people I know, a lot of why they remain poor is because they frequently make "one-time" splurges. Years later they still have no money, and they wonder why....
Food stamps are paid for by tax money. That woman essentially spent fifteen dollars of my money on something I personally consider far too expensive to purchase even though I almost certainly make far more money than she does.
It's simply terrible financial planning.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
While you were comparing the price of orange pop to the orange juice did it occur to you that tap water would be even cheaper?
Yep, tap water is cheaper but you're forgetting Vitamin A and C. Cheap supplements would help, though I'm not for certain if the "food stamp" program covers them currently and getting vitamins through food is better than getting them through supplements. I don't get "food stamps (Link card here in Illinois) myself, just work with people who did. (Individual PA's and group home workers have to be familiar with this stuff).
Where I come from 25-50k is MIDDLE income. I'm on Disability and get about 9k. Talk to me when you find sales among the POOR are increasing.
Oh fuck you, you whiny, patronising waste of space.
I just fucked my girlfriend bearback
I hope that was supposed to be "bareback", because otherwise your girlfriend is really fucking hairy.
This is exactly what will keep the iPhone a niche product once Android hits its stride. Any proper geek will want a phone that runs everything he wants it to run, and on his chosen mobile network - not what Steve Jobs feels is proper for it. Android is only one killer app that Apple denies for its iPhone away from domination.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And then you die because your body doesn't get the rest of the minerals and nutrients it needs. Great plan!
Beginning 1994, I have added 2.7% per year to the government CPI number. This should better reflect the true inflation rate since the government number has not been accurate since around 1993
CPI/Inflation Data:( ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt )
1993: 3.0
1994: 2.6
1995: 2.8
1996: 3.0
1997: 2.3
1998: 1.6
1999: 2.2
2000: 3.4
So, the graph essentially doubles inflation for the timeframe, then concludes that the "Real Stock Market Returns" are awful. Talk about manipulating your data.
Also from the link:
The Dow has historically moved within well defined channel. The boundaries of the channel have been touched only 4 times since 1910. The top of the channel was last touched in 2000.
Hm. Channel stocks. I've seen people trying to sell me that garbage on CNN. If the DOW moves in a clearly defined channel, then it would be easy for big investors to make a TON of money by knowing where the bottoms are. What "Fred's Intelligent Bear Site" has really done is create a "line of best fit" for the peaks, and create one for the valleys. If there was such a tried-and-true predictor of the stock market, surely it would not need to be found on somebody's Earthlink page!
/rantoff
I live in a neighbourhood which is rapidly gentrifying - So you have a mix of 'poor' people, middle class and upper-middle class. It's interesting to look at the houses when I walk my dog in the evening - The houses which would be branded as 'poor' - Junk in the yard, unmowed lawn, shabby house, almost always have a 50" flatscreen glowing away in the front room, showing hockey in high-def. Then I go home to my ten year old 28" CRT television with analog cable.
Do you want a cookie? Did you stop to consider that old appliances often consume more power than newer ones? How much is quality of life worth to you?
Being overly frugal can actually end up costing you more in the long run. Consider for example a person that drives their car (with these gas prices) around just to save 10 dollars on groceries versus just going to the nearest grocery store. It is likely that this person would have actually saved money by finding the store with the best median price on food instead of spending gas and time on searching for the "bargains".
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Really, I don't see this at all? About the ONLY time an app for the iPhone was denied by Apple on what was obviously an "arbitrary" decision was that useless "Pull My Finger" app. (If you ask me, Apple's biggest mistake here might simply have been letting too many other "lame" apps through. Banning "Pull My Finger" makes sense to me, if they're thinking "Hey, this isn't something that shows off our product in a positive light. People are going to see this and think the quality of things you can buy in our store is much lower than it really is." But they missed another dozen or so apps that needed to be given the boot too. Maybe they were too generous?)
Just about every other time, it amounts to someone trying to release an app that would have wound up offering some kind of functionality that duplicated something Apple was working on and secretly planning for a firmware update, or encouraged people to stop using the default app Apple included for the task in question.
(Oh, and there was the "tethering" app, which seems to have been killed off only because AT&T wouldn't go for it, despite Apple trying to work something out to bring it back.)
This might piss off the minority who really wanted to use Opera as their browser instead of Safari, on their iPhone. But trust me... 99.9% of iPhone users don't really care.
Because I don't even know what I am. I'm less than $25k thanks to the way they cut my hours...
Nobody who can afford to eat regularly at McDonald's is going to have problems affording healthy food.
My sister, her baby and her baby's daddy used to live with me back when I was first out of college. I asked her to help out by paying some rent and she told me that she was so broke that she had to eat at McDonalds. That statement almost caused me to choke on my ramen.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
What a gross oveer-simplification!
Sure, you can probably show me some people earning $25K/yr. between two people in a family of 4 or 5 who bought an iPhone, and are spending money on the plan despite asking for food stamps. That's a problem.
But saying the trend of people in the "$25K to $50K" salary category to use iPhones shows our collective tendency to "live beyond our means"? I sure hope not! It's a pretty sad state of affairs if you can earn that far above the "poverty level", working at least 40 hours a week, and people are telling you that you can't even afford to buy yourself a decent cellphone with an unlimited data plan on it.
The trend I've seen, especially with single moms and the like, is to use a higher-end smartphone and data plan as their PRIMARY form of Internet access. For some of these people, spending the $199 on the phone, and the $60 or so a month for the data is CHEAPER than the desktop PC and broadband alternative.
Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money. If or when the Democrats get control next week, we can see more money going down the poor people money pit
Before you get up on a high horse about income redistribution, maybe you should check to see if it's red states or blue states getting more federal money than they put in. And it's not just about population, the blue states contribute more per capita. So maybe you should let the people paying for those social programs make that call.
I'm just going to posit this theory, that people from these "lower" income brackets are buying iPhones, not because they need them, but because they're not so smart with their cash.
Do they _need_ an expensive communications device ? Is it helping them get ahead in life ? Hell no. They just want them cuz they're shiny, so they can go brag to the next bum "Betcha can't afford one of these thingers!". I'd say there's more causation between credit-card debt and iPhones, than with actual income levels.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
that wasn't pussy juice, that was my sloppy seconds.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Doh! I should have written "you would still make a profit if you sold them now".
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Yeah, get bent. Anyone who spends their food stamps on gourmet fruit juice deserves every bit of scorn I can dish out.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
water is free and all your body needs.
You mean, like out the toilet ?
Squirrel!
Recover its real value? You think the value of stocks at the peak of the bubble in 1929 was real? It was real in the sense that people would pay that much for the stocks, but it wasn't real in the sense that the stock price accurately represented the value of companies. You could buy a slice of toast for a million dollars, but that wouldn't make the slice of toast worth a million dollars, it would make you a doofus for paying far too much for a slice of toast.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I haven't seen it myself, but I have heard of places with limited grocery store competition (often in poor neighborhoods) where the food prices (especially for fresh food/produce) are astronomical. And if one was to stick to the dollar menu or value meals it might actually seem to be cheaper (and feel more filling due to the fat content and more nutritious than ramen). It would be close, I think, especially if one wanted meat products at the grocery store.
Around here, that wouldn't be the case.
Good for you. Millions disagree. Why do you feel compelled to comment on products you are uninterested in?
Imagine if the macs were that restrictive?
I would be cuddling with Vista in a heartbeat if that was the situation.
Because of DRM and lack in I am boycotting the iphone and others should do it too. I know I am probably not going to be effective but I purchased a Samsung Instinct.
The instinct looks very much like an iphone but has a camera and speech recognition and I can stay with sprint. ... oh and its $50 cheaper than the iphone. It acts and looks just like the Iphone but its not as drmed.
http://saveie6.com/
You got it completely wrong.
McCain thinks $250k/yr is low middle class (about what a plumber makes), which would place $50k/yr far beneath the concern of his camp.
Obama thinks $250k/yr is wealthy enough to not need the Bush tax cuts, so $50k/yr is probably near the lower end of what he considers middle class.
Why does Apple get a free pass on Slashdot with regards to its anti-competitive behavior -- preventing apps which compete with their own from running on the phone they produce -- whereas Microsoft does not (on Windows)?
We have several examples of this behavior from Apple. Where is the outrage?
Oh, right, Apple has the "OOOH, SHINY!!!" effect brought-about by Steve Jobs' reality distortion field. Carry on then!
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Most poor folks are working poor, so she's paying tax money too. I suspect you qualify for tax deductions she doesn't (mortgage interest perhaps) That costs the government money too, should she then get to tell you that you can't upgrade your video card?
Suppose she didn't spend that 15 dollars, that's not much, even if she was to save that much every week that wouldn't be enough to lift herself out of poverty. It couldn't get her a nice RHEL cert, or even a MCSE. It wouldn't be enough to bankroll a move to a place with better economic prospects.
A lot of folks say what you do, "It's because they make bad judgements that people are poor." Everybody makes bad judgements, but I think folks like you say that to absolve your self of any responsibility to help anyone other than yourself. If it's their fault then you don't have to care, and you can complain about your taxes. Maybe the real problem is that her job doesn't pay a living wage.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
My, you are quick judge.
Have you considered that perhaps using an iphone is the best option available to them?
Maybe they can't afford to get and keep a PC and full blown broadband service, but they still need ready access to tools like online maps, gps, webmail, instant messaging and web searches in order to get that edge which will enable them to get a better job and do a better job?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"Real value" is economics jargon. Maybe you should look it up.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
You must have missed the "especially . . . African Americans and hispanics" part of his comment.
Perhaps. Perhaps this is an example about how new technology appeals to younger people.
Younger people have less income, but also fewer financial responsibilities. It's a lot easier being 25 years old on $30,000 than it is to be 45 with three kids and a mortgage. When you're twenty-five years old and run out of cash, you go to your parent's house for a meal. If you can't, you go on short rations until payday. When you're forty five, it's your kids who go on short rations. Sending a kid to school hungry is a parent's nightmare.
Also consumer debt is a very different thing when you have forty years of earning ahead of you than when you have only twenty, and you're on the up curve of earning. A twenty five year old making $30,000 will probably be making more in ten years. A forty five year old is less likely to be making more in ten years he is now.
This doesn't make splurging on an expensive phone virtuous for a twenty-five year old. Yegads, I wish I'd taken some of the money I wasted when I was 25 and put it in the stock market. But I didn't, so I don't expect most people who are that age today to be any more responsible than was.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
1. Since when was not owning a house considered not having financial acumen? I own my house but I know a lot of single people with the credit and the money to buy a house who chose not to buy one because they don't want to be tied down and want to keep their options open if they decide to move to another city or another part of the metropolitan area. Besides, a house comes with maintenance that you don't have to worry about if you rent.
2. When was making $25,000 - $50,000 necessarily considered "low income". If you're living in a smaller city or the suburbs in some major city you can easily afford a $200 cell phone and a $70 month plan.
let's say I write an app that is so CPU & Screen & power intensive it causes batteries to burst.
Let's not. That's a typical stupid, contrived situation designed to win some wanky anally-retentive abstract agument, not something that's likely to happen in the real world.
If there was any known plausible circumstances under which this dangerous situation might arise, Apple would (or should) have fixed the issue via hardware, NOT via some silly OS fix that- even if it weren't jailbroken- would have the risk of failing. If they did do that it'd be quite valid to "retort that that is apple's fault-- bad design". Period.
Since when does $50,000 a year equal low income? I wouldn't even consider that low income if only one person in the family worked and made that much. The way this article reads, a single guy in his 30s making $50,000 a year is poor. Hell, all he has to do is marry some chick who makes $50,000 and suddenly they are rich?
The poor people I know who eat like crap don't do it because they can't afford better. They do it because they have no willpower.
I suspect this is largely true. But in their defense, I also belive there's something to Scott Adams's Pleasure Unit Theory. If you have a crappy apartment and a crappy job and are just barely making ends meet, that Big Mac and fries might represent the most enjoyment you can get all day, and resisting it is much harder.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Did you stop to consider that old appliances often consume more power than newer ones?
A new 42" flatscreen LCD is $1100 Canadian. My monthly power bill is around $50 per month. My old TV would have to be swallowing a LOT of juice to see a payback on replacing it, and even then it would take years. I'll replace the TV once it breaks. Until then, I watch Battlestar Galactica on it just fine.
A lot of folks say what you do, "It's because they make bad judgements that people are poor." Everybody makes bad judgements, but I think folks like you say that to absolve your self of any responsibility to help anyone other than yourself. If it's their fault then you don't have to care, and you can complain about your taxes. Maybe the real problem is that her job doesn't pay a living wage.
You're right, alot of folks do say people stay poor because they make bad judgements, because it's true.
I don't have any responsibility to help anyone other than myself or my family, but I may choose to.
If the woman has a job that does not pay a living wage then she should get another job. If she doesn't have any skills then she should get some, there are free programs that will allow her to do so.
I really hate it that people not only don't take responsibility for their own actions but tell me I'm a dick for not wanting to take responsibility for them.
The bottom line is people like that woman need to wake the fuck up and fix their lives rather than live off of the government teat for the rest of their lives. If they can't make it to their feet on their own then we give them a hand up, after that they're on their own.
I came from a lower middle class family and have had to work my way up from the bottom, nothing was handed to me. As far as I'm concerned, those who cannot make it (mostly) on their own do not deserve to make it.
Those who buy $15 fruit juice when they're getting a hand up are an example of those who don't deserve to, and probably won't, make it.
And you must have missed the fact that *that* was not in the comment referenced, but in a subsequent comment. Misattribution in this case amounts to false accusation. When participating in discussions, please follow the threads for best results.
There is an enormous difference between receiving a tax deduction and getting actual money from the government. The former just means you pay less, the latter means that money flows in the other direction.
It's possible she's paying taxes too, but I doubt she's paying much. I'm not sure what the requirements are to qualify for food stamps but by the time you get to the low end of the income scale, there are enough deductions that one's income tax burden should be minimal if not zero.
In any case, I'm not criticizing her for being poor. I'm criticizing her for buying gourmet specialty food that she certainly doesn't need (nobody needs that stuff) and cannot afford. If you have a lot of money and buy that stuff, well, whatever, it's your money. If you have little money and buy that stuff, you're stupid. If you have so little money that you need government assistance to live, then you're going beyond the merely stupid.
Ever loan money to a guy so he can pay his rent only to find out that he spent it on beer and is still behind on his rent? Same basic situation, except I can't choose not to give my money for this cause.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
That's a pretty good point. "No willpower" is probably overstating things by a lot. If I was in that situation would I have enough willpower to overcome temptation and eat well? I really don't know. Back when I had little money I still had a lot of enjoyment in my life, because I wasn't stuck in a crappy apartment with a crappy job, but was going to school.
But I think the overall point still stands. If the poor are eating poorly it's not because they can't afford healthy food, it's because they choose not to. Maybe it's a difficult choice, I won't discount that, but it's still a choice. Junk food is more expensive than a lot of healthy staples.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Talk about manipulating your data.
Yet, not one complaint about my source is directed at the reason I quoted it. The time between 1964-1984 was a very bad, yet "long term" period to buy and hold as GGP suggests we should all be doing. Buy high and sell low is a failing strategy regardless of the timeframe involved.
Your own acknowledgement that channels are bullshit only reinforces what I'm saying. If you were to believe in the channels nonsense, then you could look at the current chart and estimate that we are near the middle of the channel and that risk should be fairly even for the market to be going in either direction. Why not buy and hold? Even at the low end of the channel, I'll be better off in two, three, or four decades. That's hogwash.
The stock market is not a guaranteed win. Ever. Even if you look at historical charts and say... well everything seems to be traveling in this pretty narrow channel, you still aren't guaranteed a win. That's a gambler's fallacy. The Dow could very easily break south of that inflation adjusted 5000 even though Fred might tell you it's not likely to happen because it's outside his channel.
I figured you meant inflation-adjusted, but that doesn't change my point.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Check out the MTV Bling Bling Ad
http://www.superfad.com/clientlist.php?project=92
An excellent idea, but shouldn't all jobs pay a living wage? And depending on location, living wage jobs can be hard to get.
And what programs are those? Because of widened eligibility, middle class folks now can qualify for educational financial assistance, lowering assistance to lower income folks who have less options. For example, if getting a Corpfoo Enterprise Linux cert of some kind costs $5000 and the program only pays for $3000 that makes it harder for lower income folks to take advantage of the program. But middle class folks aren't as affected and can take advantage of it. Every year, there's fewer and fewer lower income people in higher education.
Maybe not a dick, but we're all in this together, and you personally may have benefited from government in ways you might not have noticed. For example government subsidizing suburban sprawl (intentional) and white flight (unintentional) at the expense of the urban centers.
Could you define lower middle class for me, because I've met far too many people who say they weren't affluent, but when you get to the details they were.
Nobody truly makes it on their own anymore. But what do you propose we do with those you believe do not deserve to make it? Bring back indentured servitude or slavery?
Fresh produce doesn't exist in most poor neighborhoods, as the large supermarkets have fled, leaving only convenience stores in their wake. Your choices in many neighborhoods are cans or boxes or the local McDonald's. You can try to take the bus out to the suburbs or to the nicer inner city areas, but the suburbs aren't happy about that. The last suburb I lived in terminated their agreement with the city's bus system so that people from the inner city couldn't take the bus to shop in the suburb.
Tax deductions are welfare for the upper and middle classes, they just aren't called that. It just means they don't send you a check directly. If they didn't exist the government would have more money yes? Money to build infrastructure? Money to upgrade the rail system so that people could drive less and use less fuel?
Sure, I think she was dumb for buying the juice but far be it from me to judge all poor people by her. I'm not even opposed to tax deductions for certain things as long as upper and middle class folk realize that they're just as dependent on them (and government) as poor people are.
There is an enormous difference between receiving a tax deduction and getting actual money from the government. The former just means you pay less, the latter means that money flows in the other direction.
You're only looking at money. Look at utility instead and your argument can work in reverse instead. She probably works and provides things that you have, in one way or another, benefited from.
But I think what you're missing is that everyone makes mistakes, goes on spending splurges. The only difference is that for poor people those splurges hurt more and are far more likely to blow up in your face. They have a far smaller margin of error in making purchasing decisions.
And honestly, it pisses me off in the pit of my stomach that you somehow feel privileged enough to get to critique a poor person's purchasing decision just because you make more. But I understand it is ignorance.
The difference is, if the government stopped taking in or distributing money tomorrow, my income goes up (ignoring for a moment the inevitable social collapse) and this person's income goes down.
In other words, I pay for my services. Not as much as I would if I took more deductions, but money still flows overall from me to them.
Whereas this food-stamp person most likely has a net flow from the government to her.
There's a big difference between a deduction and a direct payout.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
Riight. So when are you all going to cancel your broadband connections and go back to dialup? Remember you all have to show the younger generation that it's not how fast you get there, but whither you get there at all.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
And honestly, it pisses me off in the pit of my stomach that you somehow feel privileged enough to get to critique a poor person's purchasing decision just because you make more. But I understand it is ignorance.
Well then you have misinterpreted me. I'm not criticizing a poor person's purchasing decision just because I make more. I would criticize anyone who buys two jugs of Odwalla juice at $7+ each. It's a dumb decision made by dumb people. But in this case not only is it dumb but she demonstrably cannot afford it. And she is using my money, and the money of all other local taxpayers, to fund this rather ridiculous luxury.
My main point being, food stamps obviously help people out a lot. Eating right is cheaper than eating junk food, so the argument that people on food stamps can't afford to eat right is junk. And if people are doing well enough on food stamps to buy gourmet juice, then the argument is really junk.
You're perfectly correct that everyone makes mistakes and goes on unnecessary splurges. And you're perfectly correct that poor people have far less margin for error. But that's precisely why they should regulate themselves much more carefully. Sure, it's only human to screw up. But when your income is sufficient to eat well and healthily but you can't because you instead spend your money on McDonald's and fancy juices and Doritos, well you certainly can't blame society for your failings.
In the end it's about responsibility. Do humans screw up? Sure. But that doesn't mean you can just go off and blame other people for your screwups.
I imagine there are plenty of poor people who are able to control themselves well enough to avoid buying ridiculously expensive juice. There are plenty of poor people out there who work hard, spend frugally, and live as well as they can in their circumstances. Honestly I think it's an insult to those folk to talk about them as being in the same situation as a person who uses government food support to buy vastly overpriced luxury items.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
We're talking about Apple's rejection of applications which are deemed to "compete" with Apple's own functionality, or even planned functionality. Here's a (probably incomplete) list of higher profile apps that have been rejected by Apple, for various reasons.
Regarding Opera's rejection -- if Microsoft could have locked users into using only Internet Explorer on Windows, they would have. Once IE had killed Netscape, most internet-savvy people were even okay with using IE. Just because most of us are okay with Apple, and Safari doesn't suck, doesn't mean that Apple is justified in locking its users into its choice of software.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
An excellent idea, but shouldn't all jobs pay a living wage? And depending on location, living wage jobs can be hard to get.
Nope, all jobs should pay what the employees and employers agree upon.
Four years ago I worked three jobs for six months in order to be able to pay my bills, pay off debt, and save money to move to Gainesville, FL to go to school.
Prior to that I worked two jobs to make ends meet and pay off debt.
Prior to that I worked one job and mades stupid decisions which caused the debt I had to work off.
I no longer have to work three jobs, but I am working full time to be able to pay my way through school, no financial aid.
For example, if getting a Corpfoo Enterprise Linux cert of some kind costs $5000 and the program only pays for $3000 that makes it harder for lower income folks to take advantage of the program.
Then she should get a second job for a couple of months to be able to pay that extra $2000.
But middle class folks aren't as affected and can take advantage of it.
They are just as affected by it, they just have worked to give themselves the resources to be able to take advantage of it.
Every year, there's fewer and fewer lower income people in higher education.
There are other ways to make it in life than higher education, learning a trade for example.
Maybe not a dick, but we're all in this together, and you personally may have benefited from government in ways you might not have noticed.
Perhaps I have, but I know I have worked my ass off for everything I have.
I also know I try my damndest not to make stupid errors like buying $15 fruit juice on food stamps. I would really like to have an LCD monitor for my desktop at home but I have higher priority things to purchase with my money at the time being so I don't buy one.
The woman who purchased $15 juice very obviously had more important things to purchase with my money, but chose to spend it frivolously.
Or perhaps she didn't really need the food stamps and could spend them frivolously, but that is for a different discussion.
Could you define lower middle class for me, because I've met far too many people who say they weren't affluent, but when you get to the details they were.
Sure thing, my parents made about $30,000 a year when I was growing up for a family of 5. I certainly would not call that affluent, would you?
Nobody truly makes it on their own anymore. But what do you propose we do with those you believe do not deserve to make it? Bring back indentured servitude or slavery?
Perhaps you're right and nobody makes it on their own anymore, though I disagree. I hold that I have been given nothing other than the house over my head, clothes, food, and love that my parents provided as I was growing up. After I left their house I provided everything for myself. Until I married that is, and then I provided all of that for myself and my wife with her aid.
All things that were not needed for survival when I lived with my parents, I provided for myself. My car I bought for myself. The insurance and gas for that care, purchased by me. My computer equipment, bought by me. You see where I'm going here I'm sure.
As to what to do with those that cannot make it on their own, let happen to them what will. There are charitable organisations that will take care of some, prisons to take care of those who turn to crime, and mother nature to take care of the rest.
y main point being, food stamps obviously help people out a lot. Eating right is cheaper than eating junk food, so the argument that people on food stamps can't afford to eat right is junk. And if people are doing well enough on food stamps to buy gourmet juice, then the argument is really junk.
No, the junk is that you're making this entire argument out of one anecdotal example.
Wait - I don't care if you even come up with 100/1 anecdotal examples over established proof - I still don't believe you because of the obvious bias in your posts that nobody has bothered to track yet...
Actually, that's one of the most common dishes in Latin America, and some variety of it is eaten most days of the week. You get variety by using different kinds of beans (or peas, or lentils), different seasonings, a variety of cooking techniques, and serving it with different combinations of other dishes. E.g., you can cook the beans on their own and serve them with plain white or yellow rice, or you can make dishes where the rice and beans are cooked together. You can choose from a variety of veggies to eat.
In my experience, what many poor people really lack is realistic hopes. Why eat at McDonalds every night and spend the change on lottery tickets, instead of cooking at home and saving money? Because you have no hope that the latter will make your life any better.
and why is it ok for Apple to reject an app because they were working on something similar themselves? Or because an app was more functional (for some users) than the built-in app? Both cases are as evil as denying Opera's browser, all worthy of antitrust investigation. This is about choice and I would prefer to decide which app works best for me rather than Apple making that decision, thank you very much comrade.
Yes, I own an iphone and love it, even though I am growing irritated that I can't use TCPMP to watch flv, avi, mpg2, etc. When the bar of irritation reaches a certain level then I will likely jailbreak.
Mike O, KT2T
Yeah, and get off my lawn.
Grow a pair and start comparing prices on realistic purchases throughout various income bands throughout the country.
I love people that make great quotes but wind up eating their own asses when it comes to actual figures.
You're not nearly as fucking smart as you think you are. Give us some actual provable figures and we might fall for your racist trolls...
I also like this one: ``And the down economy isn't going to turn this trend around...''
Yeah, just like the housing market, people need to live somewhere, so it can't go down, eh?
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Nobody's been giving any provable figures and I'm not about to start.
And racist? What the fuck? I haven't even so much as mentioned race anywhere in my posts.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Explain to me how the government not taking money that is not theirs is welfare for me?
The way I read your comment you think that the money I work for belongs to the government and I just get to keep some.
I certainly agree that there are too many loopholes in the tax code. I would say that the most promising fix to this would be the fair tax.
What you say may be true. The poor are a money pit. But you must remember one critical point; spending drives economies. Giving money to the poor can still benefit the rich, the rich invest money in the companies that produce goods that the poor buy. You'll have your money back in no time. As well as more jobs for everybody. That said, you should still provide some means of education (free) for the poor to manage their wealth creation.
.
Dr. Pangloss, is that you? I thought you'd been hanged in Lisbon!
Are you adequate?
So your solution is to bring those who sell them the junk to power?
Good call.
In addition:
What could do what I say? Ah yes, that's it, the Fair Tax - taxing consumption instead of savings and earning as the current ridiculous system does.
Fist of all savings aren't taxed. And while earnings are, the problem with reversing the model is that our economy is driven by consumer spending, aka consumption. But a high barrier on consumption and watch our ridiculous global economic system crash and burn.
The "fair" tax could work in the long run (probably about 1 generation or roughly 30 years), but it would be absolutely brutal in the short term.
Also, this siren song of getting rid of the IRS sounds nice except that it would have to be replaced with a tax law enforcement agency to police the system and make sure everyone is playing "fair."
Show me risk-free interest rates
They don't exist. If they were zero-risk, you will not earn interest.
You might be interested in low-risk instruments like US Treasury bills.
Poor people are poor because they're stupid with their money.
Or because they were born into the wrong environment. Because they had no access to education. Because they have chronic illnesses, or have to support family members who do. Because they were unlucky. Because their jobs were shipped overseas. Because it's a priori impossible for _everyone_ on a 6 billion person planet to be wealthy. Because the deck is constantly stacked against them in an economic system that always privatizes the profits and socializes the costs. Because the ideal of the "American Dream" has been consistently proved incorrect by study after study: the majority of people in the US will live and die within the socioeconomic bracket that they were born in no matter what they do.
By the way, most middle and upper class folks need to develop some fiscal responsibility themselves.
Aha! So when the poors are in financial trouble, it's called being stupid, and they stay poor. Capitalism is working just fine at that level. When the wealthy do it, it's called being "fiscally irresponsible" and it's of course not any flaw of character, but the fault of any number of externalities. Where's FedGov with the bailout?
> Slaves?
Wage slaves to be more exact. I should know. I make less than $25k/year and I have a university degree.
The problem is, even if you don't see it or get it directly, even people like you benefit greatly from government spending. And if the true cost of those benefits was added up you'd pay a lot more than you do. You don't like paying for welfare, I don't like helping you (in a general sense) pay for your house (via the mortgage interest deduction. I'd rather it was a direct cash credit.) The government created the middle class and suburbia as we know it at the end of WWII with massive government spending at the expense of the cities. In other words, folks like you are partly responsible for urban blight which leads to the poverty problem that you don't like paying for. What if Sears had stayed in the city rather than moving to Hoffman estates. There's still be warehousing jobs and forlklift jobs and various data jobs in the city. The sort of working class jobs the city needs, but now they're in the suburbs and the transportation system is designed to move people from the suburbs to the city, not the other way around.
It's not fair if it benefits libertarian cranks and crackpots who simply don't want to pay "any" taxes but will put up with a "fair tax" as long as they get more money to buy a more capable gaming box or big ass plasma. I haven't seen a fair tax proposal yet that doesn't actually hurt lower income people more than anyone else, mostly because although the income exemption is initially set high in the proposals, it gets set much lower in the finished proposal. Punish the poor! They're dependent and lazy!
I think I'd agree with you more if I didn't think that the balance between employer and employee hadn't shifted majorly in favor of the employer in the last couple of decades. Nobody should have to work 2 or three jobs for any reason even getting themselves into debt. (you deprived 2 other people of a job because of your debt, just sayin) 1 job one person and that one job should pay a living wage and be respected. The guy that picks the cabbage or wipes the grandma's asses should be as respected as the guy who sits in front of a term and watches over the server (As if they get any respect either, from what I've heard.)
We tried that already, it wasn't pretty and it wasn't humane. That's what the reformers and progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries tried to put an end to.
It really surprises me that most people are so willing to pay for having the benefit to use something that is designed to keep them unaware of its inner workings. It also surprises me that most people do not feel any urge to understand the technology in their hands or hack it (I use the word "hacking" to mean something not very different than "computer programming", "amateur tinkering", or "creative customisation" always within the legal and social customs boundaries. I don't use this word to mean "illegal activities" which is the meaning of the word "cracking").
People say "I bought this", "I own this", or "this is mine". Some people seem to believe that they can own something just by buying it or being given it as a gift. That's wrong: to claim true ownership of something you need to do more than be its owner from a legal or social viewpoint.
For technological widgets like computers and mobile phones, owning a device means having full control over it and having full knowledge of its inner workings. To have full control over a device means that it must necessarily run either only free open-source software or only software written by you, and additionally all of its electronic design must be either free/open hardware designed by others or hardware designed only by you. Having full knowledge of the inner workings of a device means being possessing the full knowledge of how and why it works and all the necessary skills that are required to modify or even re-build the device. Unless all these conditions are met, when you say "I own this" you mean it in a legal or social sense and not in the hacker's sense.
I think all intelligent people should strive to attain a "hacking singularity", ie the condition that they are fully in control of and having full knowledge of the most inner workings of all the technology they use. This practically is about being able to program any device you want to be rightfully considered its owner in its machine language, and not use software instructions or electronic designs that you cannot see (open source) or modify and share (free software).
This is one of the reasons intelligent people should be in support of GPL and similar licences: right now it is impossible to attain a hacking singularity because most devices have electronic designs and software which was not meant to be modifiable by the user so it is not possible to understand, for example, how your BIOS works because it is covered by restrictive copyrights and patents, but if GPL and similar licences become the mainstream then you will be able to fully control and understand every technological widget you use. The hacker's (amateur tinkerer's) dream is a world where you can go in a shop and buy a laptop or a mobile phone and then unpack it at home and find copies of the device's electronic design blueprints and software, all licensed under the GPL or similar licence.
"antitrust investigation"
Just what monopoly does Apple have that they are unfairly competing in? They surely don't have a monopoly on phones... even smart phones.
There is no antitrust issue here until the _only_ viable phone you can buy runs OSX with Safari. As long as there are plenty of competitors in this space... you are free to go somewhere else with your dollars.
I'm not saying this is a good decision by Apple... but it is _their_ decision to make and the government has no say in it.
Friedmud
The balance between employer and employee is what it is. If you don't like the balance, shift it. Make yourself worth more, get better educated, get a new skill, work harder than the guy next to you, do whatever it takes to shift that balance. Just don't whine about it.
I deprived nobody of a job. If there were more qualified applicants than myself they would have gotten the job.
I did not HAVE to work 2 jobs to live, I chose to because the other option, taking many years to correct my mistakes, was not good enough for me. Had I not made those mistakes I could have lived on what I made from one job.
You make it sound like it is everybodys right to have a job, that living is a right. I hate to tell you this but that is not the way the world works. If living were a right then mana would fall from the sky and we could spend all day pondering the reality of our navels.
The real world is harsh and we must make our way in it. If you want to eat you have to either kill something, plant or animal, and eat it or you have to pay somebody something of worth to do the killing for you. That is a simplistic view, but it scales nicely if you ask me.
As for respect, it is something else that is not a right. Respect must be earned. That being said, it is not hard to earn my respect. That guy who picks the cabbage all day has my respect if he does it to the best of his ability. The one who wipes the grandma's ass gets the same if he does it to the best of his ability. Just because they are doing manual labor does not mean that I don't respect them.
However if Mr. Cabbage Picker instead of doing his best work decides to slack off and do just enough to not get fired, no respect to him. Unfortunately this seems to be the way that a large slice of the US population acts. I cannot fathom it as I value respect and want to be able to respect myself.
As to your last statement, life is not pretty, nor is it humane, get used to it.
Wow, who ever said that I didn't benefit from governemt spending, of course I do. I love the roads I drive on. I love being defended from outside invaders. The governement is necessesary for infrastructure and such. No argument there.
If the jobs moved out of the city then perhaps the people should have too hmm?
The proposal is unfair because it gets made unfair in congress, that makes a lot of sense. How about just making sure that the income exemption levels stay high? Then would it be fair? I don't want to punish the poor, I just want them to not get any more handouts than are necessary to get them to not be poor anymore. This would require them to be not only not lazy but very hardworking.
This is just another sad example of the American tendency to live beyond one's means. This is another symptom of the disease that is eating this country: financial illiteracy.
As I did RTFA to confirm that there's no mention of credit card, I question if you're referring to living with credit cards - completely off-topic but still highly modded (?!?) - or if you're asserting that the phone and plan are beyond the means of the poor and therefore postulate that in addition to living beyond their means, they're idiotically subsidizing the credit card companies.
In the case of the latter, you're not insightful at all. In fact, you're so far out of your depth that it's not funny.
I have a son - single parent, almost full-time college, full-time job - in other words, a man of limited means. He has a couple hundred dollar phone - gifted from me - and an unlimited voice/data/roaming plan for $99/month.
For $99, he gets full phone service, voice mail - for his boss asking when school's out, for his profs asking if his papers will be in on time, for daycare to let him know if his kid is sick - and caller id to avoid slacker friends at inconvenient times.
It's his complete email portal - the phone will USB to his laptop where he can offload a PDF of a paper and email it to his so-understanding profs when his dad duties keep him at home. He doesn't have time to surf and play on the net, but it is way handy for WebMD, class changes, syllabus updates from home, etc.
He has no broadband at home. He has no land line at home. Just an unlimited 3G voice/data plan. Not paid for by credit card.
BTW - that pesky built-in camera that most of us don't care about is his only way to track his kid's growing up right now.
Find me a better deal. One that REALLY helps someone of son's means cope with life's rich tapestry. I'll tell my son all about it.
Until then, I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about - you're just getting points spouting off cliches.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
It is the government's money, or at least the value of it is the government's value. The government's reputation gives it all the value it has. Deal in trade goods and we can have this discussion again.
$200-$300 to buy the phone and $70-$130/month for service is freakin' expensive.
Our household income is 3x the national average, but I live in the North East, where a townhouse will set you back $300,000 - even in this market...so we don't really feel well off.
I have an iPhone but only because work supplies it for free. My wife has a phone that we pay for. I bought her phone outright and put it on a pre-paid plan. We have stellar credit, and we were eligible for a traditional phone plan, but we did the math and paying $40/month didn't make sense for her amount of usage.
I'm amazed at the amount of people that have an iPhone. I guess the economy really isn't that bad yet.
The amount of leased BMWs on the road also amazes me....bling, bling, pinky ring...
-ted
Nn iPhone is more a necessity than a 500 dollar dentist bill or insurance payments?...ok, this is why I don't support the idea of "universal" healthcare. When people can't afford to blow $500 on something they don't need among other things, and still struggle, then I'll look into it.
Wow dude, you've got to be kidding. I live in a poor area where food stamps are quite common. You know what these people buy? They buy "Big Gulps" (44 ounce sodas) at 7-11 across the street. Are you telling me that that is cheaper than water? Even Orange Juice? Those things cost $2 a pop!
Thats where all of us low income users get our iPhones, from people turned off by the high cost forced data plan + voice plan who have swiched to a S60 based phone running Symbian OS with WIFI.
Why I have just found 2 more iPhones in the bin just this afternoon. I have seven now.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The AC poster should have been a clue that you were being trolled. Please don't feed the trolls.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
So you said: "You think the value of stocks at the peak of the bubble in 1929 was [inflation-adjusted]?" Come on, that doesn't even make sense. So you didn't know what I meant by "real value". Big deal. But show some integrity and own up to it.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Frozen/canned meals are alot cheaper than fresh vegetables, at least here.
I'm a student and can only afford, and have the time to prepare, the frozen/canned/boxed stuff.
Nobody gets fat because they eat frozen/canned vegetables instead of the fresh kind.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Well this is my experience based on our efforts to eat healthy with limited money. A frozen dinner may be the same or lower cost than a McDonald's value meal, but food that must be cooked will cost less than either one. So real poor people go for raw meat and vegetables, and just cook it themselves. The problem here is, healthier foods like turkey and salmon will cost more than beef or pork. And the leaner beef and pork costs more than the fatter beef and pork. As stated before, juice costs more than carbonated soda. For dessert, Twinkies cost way less than fruit. Everything with corn syrup costs less than fruit. So if you're talking about real poor people, then yes it does cost more to eat healthy. If you're talking about people who can afford to eat at all their meals at McDonald's then you're not talking about real poor people.
I agree, it gets harder to eat healthy if you're lazy because you have to cook your own food. I disagree that potatoes, beans, and vegetables are cheaper than junk food. Chips and twinkies cost less. It might be possible to buy just the beans for less.
About the Odwalla juice. According to Wikipedia, Odwalla is a health food company. So you just said healthy eating cost less, and then cited an example of health food with an outrageous price. I also don't know any actual poor people who would spend $15 on any juice whatsoever.
Proof that a similar purchase can very well be within one's limited means, in contradiction to the parent, is a troll.
Add to the "disagree != troll" list:
Can't take the truth != troll
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
*sigh* I was twisting your words intentionally to make a point.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Fattier meat isn't a problem for eating healthy, you can often remove a lot of that depending on how you cook it, and even if you can't, simply use less. In the end, meat is completely optional anyway.
You're correct that juice is more expensive than soda, but water is cheaper than both. Juice is also completely optional. Tap water is completely serviceable, and even if our hypothetical poor people somehow live in a place where the tap water is undrinkable, filters or cheap store-brand bottled water bought in bulk will still undercut soda by a huge amount.
Dessert is also optional. See where I'm going with this?
As for potatoes, beans, and vegetables being cheaper, I try to buy my vegetables for $1/pound or under, and always manage no more than $2/pound even on expensive weeks with no sales. I could easily manage less if I cared to eat more of my less preferred vegetables such as cabbage. Potatoes I rarely even see at over $1/pound, and often pick up for significantly less. Can't remember what I last paid for beans as I don't buy them that often, but it's in a similar range and they have the distinct advantage of being dry, and so weighing less for the same nutritional value.
And let's not forget rice. I buy good rice in bulk for fifty cents a pound. If you don't insist on stuff with Thai writing on it then you can get it for a fair bit less.
I can't recall ever seeing junk food sell for $1/pound. Most of the time it's more like $3-4/pound. Now I'll admit that they probably have more satiating power due to being mostly solid with little water content compared to vegetables, but even so I don't see it ever being cheaper to feed yourself on junk food.
As for Odwalla, do you believe the label on everything? "Health food company" means that they have realized that the people who were hippies in the 60s are now well-off but still gullible and are an excellent source of revenue, and that a lot of their children have inherited these traits and are also an excellent source of revenue. Drinking Odwalla doesn't make you healthier. It makes you poorer and more pretentious, nothing more. If you really want to get healthy, skip the insanely expensive orange juice and just eat the orange. Yes, oranges are expensive, but at the typical price my local store charges, oranges are still significantly cheaper than Odwalla.
I don't know any poor people who would spend $15 on juice either. I just saw one once. But I do know people who are poor or simply not very financially well off (but not to the extent that I'd call them poor) who suffer from far more financial difficulty than they need to because they tend to buy stuff like that, even if they don't go to that extreme.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Can I ask you? Why do you want to retire at 55? You don't enjoy your job/profession?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Rich people get richer by acting poor, and poor people stay poor by acting rich.
An excellent idea, but shouldn't all jobs pay a living wage?
Let's consider this statement for a second. There is some level of pay that you consider to be an acceptable level, a living wage, if you will. Let's say that is $24,000/year, for sake of argument. It really doesn't matter what the number is.
For an employer to be willing to hire and keep that person, the employer has to earn at least that much additional income. Not sales, income. If you are a rational employer, and you have an employee whom you pay $24,000 for, who is only earning for you say, $22,0000, what is your rational choice? Do you eliminate the job, of what?
If we say that there is some minimal level of pay that is reasonable to allow, then we are consigning all the jobs that don't deliver that much value to an employer to oblivion.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Wow. I was in Kutztown and got a picture of a truck who's legit vanity plate said JESUS. I'd have to look to see if I got a picture of it but I think it had a rack in it. I didn't see the owner of the truck but if I'm ever back there and see the truck again I'll check to see if he's got a cell phone and if it is an iPhone. If it is then I'm holding you accountable for all the mental trauma you've caused me by imagining that. ;)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
While I am sympathetic to your main point, it's clear you don't have kids. It is simply NOT true that healthy food is cheaper. Price out the calories available from Kraft Mac and Cheese, and compare to chicken breast. Compare to apples, lettuce, broccolli. Add some milk in. COmpare some good breads to wonder bread. Beans and rice are cheap, but not nutritional complete.
Poor people are fat for a reason. One of the reasons is that shitty food is more affordable.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
I can see how this trend can continue. I would personally give up my land line, high-speed Internet, my satellite TV, and many other niceties and extras before I drop my iPhone. It has been an all-in-one device for me everywhere I go for the last 3 months, more practical and portable than my OLPC.
Geographically lots of low-income folks live in inner cities, where 3G is available, so a 3G phone is a good choice for an multi-use media/information device.
I already have multiple PCs at work and at home to tweak and geek out on all I want. I don't have time or care to spend more time tweaking my phone that I just want to simply use. So I cannot use Opera on my iPhone, so what? Most Blackberry users that I showed my iPhone to wouldn't care either.
Until you can explain how Apple has become "too big to fail" like the banks the Feds is bailing out with your children's future, or why you are forced to buy the iPhone, don't event mention the word antitrust.
By the way, for what's it worth, there's Opera Mobile available on Windows Mobile (and competing with Microsoft's out-of-the-box Pocket IE).
I'm pretty sure that the 'poor' people aren't buying this for the features and are just buying the fairly pointless Iphone just so they can feel better about themselves.
Whoever came up with the idea that it's anything other than this is deluding themselves.
Last I checked, Mac and Cheese and all other boxed "instant" dinners were considerably more expensive than the individual raw materials they contain. You can just buy the pasta and some cheese, then use the leftover money to complete the meal with more nutritional materials.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
The iPhone's feature set is nowhere near that of a Palm or Windows Mobile phone. This really is all about people buying something for style... it's the cellular equivalent of $150 running shoes.
Congratulations, Apple, you finally created the iProduct.
One reason people want to retire early is so that they can choose to work or not. I enjoy my work but it's still work. If I could retire now I'd probably still do it, but I'd do it less and spend the rest of my time on other things.
Web consulting +
... it is _their_ decision to make and the government has no say in it.
Unless you're an IP lawyer (or have consulted one) you really can't make that claim. Non-lawyers (like me, for example) are often surprised by how often the law contravenes rationality or common sense. Granted, sometimes there are deeper or more important concerns addressed by a given law than are apparent at first glance. But not always. So, I'd not be at all surprised if the government has a legal (if not ethical or moral) right to poke their noses into this.
Not saying they would bother: but odds are they could if they wanted to.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
have anything to do with Apple?
There is no antitrust issue here until the _only_ viable phone you can buy runs OSX with Safari.
Really? So the only viable computer you can buy runs Windows with IE? I guess the Linux users and Mac users here on /. will be interested to hear that
I doubt you've ever checked, or that you have ever cooked a pasta meal from scratch from ingreients you bought, or you wouldn't persist in this silliness. Do you even know what cheese costs a pound? Please go buy a box of Kraft mac and cheese, and then try to duplicate it. Joy of Cooking has a recipe. Feel free to report back.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
I want to retire at 55 so that I can hopefully work on the things I want to work on. I love my job, but I'm really looking forward to being able to spend my time with my family and my hobbies (in that order).
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Oh please. I cook from scratch constantly. And I do it for two reasons: first, I like to cook and I like the results. Second: it is vastly cheaper than buying everything pre-made.
I know what cheese costs per pound. About $4.50 when I buy it.
I wanted to inject some actual number into this, so I went to peapod.com and checked it out. They should be fairly representative, despite being a delivery service, as my impression is that they simply charge the same prices as the Giant stores which run the service.
The best price I could find on Kraft Mac and Cheese was $5 for 36.2oz, about 14 cents/oz. It contains 12 servings at 390 calories for about .1 cents per calorie.
Next up, store brand elbow macaroni, 16oz for $1.29 or 8 cents/oz. It contains 8 servings at 218 calories for about 0.08 cents/calorie Of course I would not limit myself to macaroni and would choose any pasta if I really wanted to save money, but this seems to be the best price for pasta on peapod.com anyway.
And now cheese. In the interests of preserving our health, I'll skip over the "cheese food" and go for the actual big chunks of real cheese that Giant sells for $4.33/pound if you buy it 2 pounds at a time. Packaging says 24 servings at 110 calories which works out to 0.16 cents/calorie.
So per calorie the Kraft package is a bit more expensive than the pasta and a bit less expensive than the cheese. Of course the Kraft package is mostly pasta, not cheese. It probably has some other stuff besides just cheese for the mix, but on the other hand there's absolutely no requirement to produce an identical meal to what you get from a box, just a serviceable one. Elbow macaroni and some cheese on top is not particularly nutritious, but it's at least better than the Kraft box. To cut costs further, substitute rice ($4 for 5 pounds on peapod, half that cost or better when bought in bulk from a better place) for the pasta. Put those savings into some carrots or other cheap vegetables and you still have a meal that costs less and is not horrendously bad for you. It may not taste as good, but so it goes.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
If living were a right then mana would fall from the sky and we could spend all day pondering the reality of our navels.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
United States Declaration of Independence, Preamble
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3
Just because it says so in a famous document, that doesn't make it true. Nor does it make it indefensible to argue in disagreement with it.
"Anonymous Cowards are the bravest souls in the universe!"
Just because it was written doesn't make it so.
I was talking about something a bit lower level than they were. If living were a right then how you kill anything to eat? It is that brocolli stalks right to live, how dare you kill it so that you can live?
The point is this, life is difficult, only those who try the hardest (or get really lucky) get to win. The sooner that people figure that out the better off they are.
I suppose the Blackberry is currently the biggest direct competitor to the iPhone (despite lots of lame iPhone look-alikes coming out).
I've used the Blackberry though, and my ex-g/f even had one, which she opted to buy instead of an iPhone.
My opinion of them isn't so high though. I'm at a bit of a loss to explain why people see them as so "superior". The little "roller ball" they use to move around the screen feels "cheap" and tends to get gunked up, losing its responsiveness.
Sure, the iPhone can't do "cut and paste" (yet), but I haven't ever felt like I missed it either? It *is* smart enough to link up things to the appropriate apps that work with them. So, for example, if someone emails me a phone number, the number can be tapped to dial it, and easily added to my contacts list from there, etc.
Blackberries also have smaller screens, so I can view less of a web page or email on the screen at one time -- a big negative that bothers me EVERY time I use one.
Umm... for starters, because Apple owns the store selling these iPhone apps, and store owners have ALWAYS had the right to choose not to stock/sell whatever items they wanted.
There are alternatives for running these apps on iPhones (jailbreaking). As many people have probably noticed, Apple really hasn't made any direct moves to prevent jailbreaking apps from working properly. They've quietly allowed all of that to go on, simply saying they won't be responsible for modified phones. (Makes perfect sense, because what company would want to support and warranty one of their deviced used outside the scope they originally defined for it?)
If Apple was constantly sending out updates that defeated jailbreaking (a la Sony and their firmware updates for PSP!), then you might have some kind of argument.
This is not like the MS antitrust suit, where there really was no choice involved, as at the time nobody had a product that could compete, market wise, with Windows. The iphone may be wonderful, but if you are looking for choice there are many other phones to choose from that will give you everything you are looking for. Let those that don't mind vendor lockin buy the iphone, and get something else.
Don't you know that a high-speed internet, cable tv and a cool phone are more important than food, gas, or healthcare?
No, it just takes planning and WORK to eat healthy on a budget. Buying the basic food staples and cooking at home is a lot cheaper and nutritious than buying junk food. But it's easier to buy crap food that you just have to throw down your gullet when watching the current episode of Springer.
The poor aren't being forgotten. There is so much government bloat and other nonsense (like ALL the legislation & banking regulations tied to the subprime mortgage mess) that caters to the poor that it's disgusting. I really wonder how much longer the rest of country is going to put up with these parasites. They do nothing but drag down the quality of the schools, fill the jails, and cause havoc for everyone else.
Son, when you get done waving your dick around, go back and read what you just wrote. Kraft provides food, more or less ready to go, for something like 60 cents a serving. You're going to suggest that someone should try and beat that price? Your prices suggest that to make it from scratch is 37 cents a serving, without the milk, flour, cookware, and modest talent it takes to make mac and cheese.
I repeat, my young friend, why don't you actually cook some mac and cheese, and see what it takes? And then ask yourself what a poor single mother ought to do to feed her children with her abundant free time. Cooking from scratch takes time, and time is not always free.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
I dunno, I have this weird idea that a poor single mother ought to put in the extra effort to give her children good food. Yeah, she doesn't have a lot of free time, but I never said that their life is easy.
Should eating well be easier than it is? Hell yes! But that is not the same as saying that poor people can only afford to eat junk.
The claim was that fattening junk food is cheaper than healthy food. As in, money. I think we can put that idea to rest now, if you're having to bring "time is money!" into it.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
I am those can't afford the iphone. Please keep the price down otherwise everyone will go away since they are couple of dislike about the apple/mac http://www.makefive.com/categories/technology/technology/things-that-suck-about-apple