Slashdot Mirror
The Poor Waste More Time On Digital Entertainment
New submitter polyphydont writes "Children of parents with low social status are less able to resist the temptations of technological entertainment, a fact that impedes their education and adds to the obstacles such children face in obtaining financial comfort later in life. As explained in the article, poor parents and their children often waste both their time and money on heavily marketed entertainment systems. Such families often accumulate PCs, gaming consoles and smart phones, but use them only for nonconstructive activities."
FTFA:
In the 1990s, the term “digital divide” emerged to describe technology’s haves and have-nots. It inspired many efforts to get the latest computing tools into the hands of all Americans, particularly low-income families.
As access to devices has spread, children in poorer families are spending considerably more time than children from more well-off families using their television and gadgets to watch shows and videos, play games and connect on social networking sites, studies show
In other words, a bunch of do-gooders gave a bunch of computers to the noble savages who live in that neighborhood that they avoid on the way to work, assuming that these ignorant natives would use this wonderful new device to rise up out of the ghettos and become good middle-class liberals. Only the do-gooders were distressed to learn that instead of getting their degrees online and reading academic papers, their beneficiaries instead chose to use their new machines to watch nut-shot YouTube videos and play Farmville. So now they're seeking a way to force these foolish ingrates to use their computers the way the do-gooders know they're supposed to.
Who would have thought that giving a computer to someone who lives in a shithole neighborhood, with little in the way of safe local entertainment, would choose to use it for online entertainment, huh? We must educate them on the proper way to use a computer before they find Facebook and start messaging our daughters instead of using Kahn Academy courses to learn algebra!
Next you'll be telling me that the kids in the One Laptop Per Child program traded their laptops for food rather than using them to learn the Queen's English!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Children of parents with low social status are less able to resist the temptations of technological entertainment, a fact that impedes their education and adds to the obstacles such children face in obtaining financial comfort later in life.
I didn't see anywhere in the article where they called that a fact. Conversely, the article seems to explain it to be a correlation and, if this concerned me, I would be more worried about the overall growing trend regardless of social status. From the article:
A study published in 2010 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children and teenagers whose parents do not have a college degree spent 90 minutes more per day exposed to media than children from higher socioeconomic families. In 1999, the difference was just 16 minutes.
The study found that children of parents who do not have a college degree spend 11.5 hours each day exposed to media from a variety of sources, including television, computer and other gadgets. That is an increase of 4 hours and 40 minutes per day since 1999.
Children of more educated parents, generally understood as a proxy for higher socioeconomic status, also largely use their devices for entertainment. In families in which a parent has a college education or an advanced degree, Kaiser found, children use 10 hours of multimedia a day, a 3.5-hour jump since 1999. (Kaiser double counts time spent multitasking. If a child spends an hour simultaneously watching TV and surfing the Internet, the researchers counted two hours.)
Perhaps people of a lower social status feel the need to escape more so than people who have an easier life? If you live in a crappy environment, are you surprised that you want to spend 10 hours a day pretending you're a valiant knight in Skyrim or being swept up in "Adventure Time" where anything can happen?
As explained in the article, poor parents and their children often waste both their time and money on heavily marketed entertainment systems.
The funny thing is that if you look it as dollar spent per hour enjoyed, it's not a waste of money. It's actually much more affordable than taking your kid on a field trip or sailing or even to the movies. Hell, football pads and gear probably cost more than a Wii with games. I agree that the kids should spend more time visiting the library but as someone who grew up underneath the poverty line, I feel like this interpretation of this study was pretty shallow. I mean, if you're concerned about poor people spending money on video games, why aren't you demanding we outlaw the lottery and gambling? Numbers-wise it's not rich people who enjoy those stupid, expensive habits.
My work here is dung.
...drugs, cigarettes, liquor, gambling, lottery tickets, flat screens, cell phones, junk food, etc...
Such families often accumulate PCs, gaming consoles and smart phones, but use them only for nonconstructive activities.
Find me a constructive activity to do with gaming consoles and smart phones. Stack them up like blocks? Practice marksmanship? Learn circuit bending?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
In other words, those that are more likely to achieve their financial goals are better at time management. But we're not supposed to say unflattering things about the poor, or say flattering things about those that aren't.
It can't be that those in the lower financial class are bad with time management, but that electronic devices are evil.
People with limited income and access to non-screen entertainment tend to waste money (or rather, easy-to-obtain credit) on highly marketed frivolities instead of investing their money in something long term. Who would have thought that impoverished households would be prey to such things?
People watching lots of advertisements buy all that advertised crap.
Film at 11.
Waste and spend are two entirely different things.
So we waste technology for entertainment eh? Isn't this just the tip of the iceberg of the technological revolution? I call bullshit. Where's the percentage who use it to expand their minds?
Don't forget the lottery!
It's the math tax, you know.
As explained in the article, poor parents and their children often waste both their time and money on...
... slashdot posts
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
This is nothing more than thinly veiled lifestyle snobbery. Why is it even on /.?
Perhaps they are poor BECAUSE they waste so much time doing unproductive things. Depends on your definition of poor, though.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
and again...
Being poor in America is definitely a weird thing...
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
I've observed that many affluent people spend great deals of cash on sporting goods, expensive hobbies, and out-of-home entertainment.
It's not like they're all buying computers and then using them for productivity.... it's just that a great deal of more productive, healthy, or useful activities are still much more expensive than cheap TVs, cheap computers, and cheap video games.
It's not like the rich people stare at the wall all day instead of playing video games.
Seriously - while the ghetto dad is playing with his $200 XBox, the rich dads are riding $2000 bikes with $3000 worth of shiny spandex.
I noticed the same sort of trend with people that are driving cars that barely run, yet have the latest and greatest smart phone from one of the big carriers. I wonder if it is just because the poor might wrongfully think that respect is earned through how much one owns, sports, and shows off. Some of it is the bling factor, some of it is just buying the toys out of cynicism and resignation. They might be resigned to never leaving their current socio-economic status so they buy gadgets to make life a little more fun and less unbearable.
While what Matt Ritchel writes in his NY Times article does raise an issue worth discussing, I have two issues with what he writes. The first is that he fails to mention that this pattern mirrors long-standing patterns of media consumption. Media reports, including those by Pew, the Kaiser Family Foundation (and many others) indicate correlations between consumption and SES (socio-economic status). The presumption is that exposure to media is counerproductive. Which brings me to my second point: the assumption that exposure to media is counterproductive. Matt mentions several students in his article; they indicate that they're falling victim to "media overuse", missing homework and not getting enough sleep. But what's much harder to measure is the value that media users ARE gaining from using media, including Facebook, for their activities. As an example, we see a workplace shift toward hiring workers with 'social marketing' and 'online' skills; and it's no question that big companies are betting on "Social CRM", including the king of CRM, Salesforce. So, it's absolutely possible that using Facebook - overusing, some might say - is actually aiding its users gain in the online social skills they'll need to succeed in the future. But all of this doesn't detract from a central point about media consumption, and that is, that it's at the expense of Other Things: like playing hide and seek, running, gardening, etc - many of the active things that help humans be socially, physically and mentally healthy in ways that interaction with a computer can't. So, all in all, it's a thick question -- Matt does do something important by raising the issue, so KUDOS for that. The question, now, is what we all learn from the dialogue. Cheers, --Dave / PLML
They make poor decisions (such as spending $110 a month for unlimited cellphone service) and thus continue to be poor. While those who make smarter decisions, like investing the $110 in a business, and climb up the income ladder to middle class.
*
*I used the example based on someone I know. Doesn't even know how to use the internet, but still "had" to have a $110/month plan. Meanwhile the credit cards go unpaid.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
oh my FUCKING god you are stupid.
Eat your HOT GRITS.
The difference is that they can afford it.
See, when they were kids, "poor" kids played with sticks. "Normal" kids had a real baseball and real gloves. "Rich" kids had uniforms.
What is this XBox?
Social networking is for airheads. It's the new form of hanging out at the mall.
Such families often accumulate PCs, gaming consoles and smart phones, but use them only for nonconstructive activities.
I only use PCs, gaming consoles and smart phones for porn.
People who waste money on digital entertainment are more likely to be poor, not the other way around. Being poor doesn't lead these people to waste money on digital entertainment - it's their bad decision-making (ie: wasting money on unproductive digital crap) that makes them poor.
The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.
Can a failing authority keep the underclasses and oppressed from revolting? Rome had its bread and circuses, America has food stamps and Modern Warfare 3.
Your prices are out of whack:
XBox 360 + accessories + a few games = $650
Felt S22 triathlon bike ($1200) + shiny spandex ($150) =~ $1350
But point taken, nonetheless.
From The Boondocks - written by an African American. So fuck off with your white shame...
Gin Rummy: Basically, nigga technology is asomething that doesn't plug into a printer. Does that plug into a printer?
Ed Wuncler: No
Gin Rummy: Wanna know why?
Ed Wuncler: Why?
Gin Rummy: 'Cause niggas never have nothin' to print.
In other words - people who are too lazy to "get ahead" will spend some of their laziness on electronic doodads when they have the opportunity to do so. Who would have guessed?
And before you jump on the "too lazy" part of what I just said - if you're poor or down & out, and you're playing XBOX instead of going to the library to learn whatever, or you spend the money on an XBOX instead of something that would provide you with the knowledge to get ahead, then yes, you're lazy.
For most people, getting ahead takes hard work. It's a lot easier to seek out entertainment than the knowledge and skills required to get ahead. This article seems to be right in line with what most people would expect.
He didn't say all poor people were stupid. He said they were not making as many smart choices, trapping them where they were.
There is a vast difference between your statement and what he actually said; as per the typical liberal stance there can be no grey areas so you flamed him without thinking.
Not a smart choice, and the collective choices like these that you and people that think like you have made over the years are finally catching up to you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is because the poor have higher rates of time preference - that, incidentally, is also why they're poor. In western countries at least.
It's not because they don't have enough OPM showered on them (and their welfare turdlets).
What were they supposed to do? Write a novel? Yeah, that's pretty easy to do when you are starving, worried about the landlord kicking you out, and dodging bullets on your way to and from school.
Manage their bank accounts they don't have? Oh wait, maybe use western union on line to pay bills with the cash they have.. Oh wait, you need a bank account for that.
Hmm, go to online courses that they can't afford to get that MBA? Purchase publishing software or graphic art software? Learn to write Java for Enterprise level businesses on their own? Oh, I got it.. they could buy Autocad and become famous designers for the automotive industry that moved overseas... Dang, not those things either..
Maybe the concept of giving someone money or a PC and forgetting about them is not the way to solve the problem. Maybe they need jobs, education, safe areas to live in, and opportunities that go beyond a 500.00 tax write off for someone.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There is this idea that "computers", as an abstract concept, are a way to improve education. We see this all the time; most recently, states are pouring huge amounts of money into putting laptop computers into the hands of every student. It seems that people seldom ask why we're doing this. Why are we doing this? Well, it's self-evident that computers make education better, right? At least, that's the way we've been treating the issue. We don't have enough people asking in what ways, specifically, computers will improve education.
So this article is about the result of that way of thinking. Today, even the poorer kids have access to technology in their homes. And, obviously, they play video games with the technology instead of sitting in front of the computer and thinking great thoughts and composing essays and multimedia presentations in their spare time. But the article is full of people who express surprise at this. They are mystified that putting computers into kids' hands didn't magically make them into better students and deeper thinkers.
As has been said in this forum many times before, a computer is merely a tool. There is absolutely no reason why you should expect a student to suddenly become a great learner simply because you handed him a computer, any more than you would expect him to complete his education on his own if you handed him a pile of K-12 textbooks. Someone in charge has to stop and ask the right questions, if we want computers to really help in education. Someone has to stop and ask why and how we expect computers to help, and then implement a plan that actually makes that happen. Because right now, we're just funneling a lot of money into facebook machines for students.
Is political agnosticism a stance as you define "stance"? Is, for example, the claimed political neutrality of Jehovah's Witnesses a stance?
FWIW - I suspect a whole subgroup of our species is more susceptible to advertising/meme following/trends (call it what you will). A new Ipad is out - that's it, I've just got to have it. A new Beamer, a new TV, a new household accessory, a new holiday destination, a new school, a new suburb, a new pair of shoes ...
Used to be called keeping up with the Joneses. Nor sure what it is now. Marketeers just love these people.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Granted, very few people are setting up their own social networks
For one thing, people set up their own web forums all the time. For another, that could change if development of Diaspora gains momentum. Do you think that's gonna happen?
Just raise the salaries of "the poor" into the several millions a year and we'll be able to flee/evade taxes as well as waste more time on non-digital entertainment, such as, travelling on our yatch to golf courses around the world, driving hypercars in racing tracks around the world, hunting around the world, eating at 5+ star hotels and resorts around the world, fucking high class hookers around the world, and so on.
Untill then, fuck the authors/snobs of this article/study/insult/stating the obvious as if "the poor" couldn't understand their life style without the "enlightment" of the non-digital entertained, ah ha ah ha ah ha, so delightfull to ocasionally stop by and remind the poor how poorly entertained they are, now back to our orgy at the mansion.
And don't forget, we don't descriminate or socially exclude the poor for being poor, our prices and market segmentation do it for us. AHa HAa! So funny to watch the poor struggling for the dream to ultimatly end up working for us for spare change. Oh the joys of non-digital entertainment.
The article implies that people that are poor waste more time (and likely, a greater percentage of their already small income) on Digital Entertainment.
Isn't this really the other way around?
I think people that waste lots of time watching movies and buying gadets they don't need end up being poor. (Of course rich people are an exception, but I'm talking low/middle class here).
"Work is the curse of the drinking class" --Oscar Wilde.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Reminds me some years ago when a city councilman wanted to significantly reduce number of liquor stores. He said poorer areas of city have higher concentration of such stores enticing poor people to spend money on liquor and cigarettes. He also pointed out there are many more billboards for these products in lower income neighborhoods, and then policy makers wonder why poor people waste so much time of cigs and booze. For me, I think number of stores should be reduced (I admit I've not done statistical surveys to see if poor neighborhoods have higher concentration liquor stores than wealthy). But lots of luck implementing because people will scream guvmint regulations/interference/socialism (or whatever govt gripe of the month) destroying our choice of how we want to live.
mfwright@batnet.com
Funny thing is, I actually though a lot less about buying my road bike (around $1200) than buying a PS3 (which I still haven't bought).
please excuse my apathy
I guess what got me interested in being 'Digitally Literate' was the fact that they did a bit more than just slap an expensive digital doo-dad in front of me. They taught me how it worked. They taught me how to make it do things. They taught me what made it tick. Hell, in High School I didn't have a computer of my own. For much of college I had a dumb VT-52 terminal with a 300 baud modem. It was enough to teach me the basics, and spark my interest to learn more. Don't they /teach/ anymore?
They also might become curious about how it works which leads to learning what is under the hood
And ultimately to getting sued in federal court for learning what is under the hood. Sony v. Hotz.
So, folks with a sucky and/or dangerous external world, and few chances for achievement or accomplishment turn to virtual worlds where they can triumph and gain a bit of validation?
Next thing you'll tell us is that folks will project an emotional attachment to sports team and gain or lose validation that way as well.
I drank what? -- Socrates
I can't ever recall anyone asking for this information for any other reason than to use it to smear someone.
You don't need to know because it doesn't matter, you WANT to know because you think you can then go "AHA YOU SUPPORT TEAM BLUE YOU'RE A _____" or "I KNEW IT, YOU SUPPORT TEAM RED, YOU ARE A _______"
You want to know because it will allow you to avoid addressing the actual issues, and frankly, YOU and those like YOU are what's wrong with politics in this country.
It's entirely possible to address his position without knowing anything else about him.
*I used the example based on someone I know. Doesn't even know how to use the internet, but still "had" to have a $110/month plan. Meanwhile the credit cards go unpaid.
WHO doesn't know how to "use" the internet in 2012? You should "use" the internet to brush up on your grammar.
Anyone else watch that awful TV show, which I always seem to watch, "Hard Core Pawn".
The XBox 360 is a very popular item. Not to mention laptops and other gaming consoles....
Children from poor families are less interested in education, and more likely to be poor themselves. I knew this in 6th grade. It's just that back then they were wasting time on analog entertainment, and picking fights.
Weird. Just got Xbox Star Wars, game, extra controller for $450. Noticed they had $250 bundles as well.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Let me guess... Low social status = PC and upper social status = Mac? Or wait... If your successful and well known on TV, then you must own the new talking iPhone, right?
ADHD is inheritable to a high degree, and even someone without the full-blown disorder can have traits of it. I don't think it's that simple though as many poor people I've observed actually exhibit good impulse control and reasonable planning/executive abilities. I think that it's a general inability to make their will and drive manifest (or a lack of such in the first place) that results in poverty, no matter the underlying cause. Someone could, for example, be so socially inhibited or incompetent that they can't get a good job.
Emotions! In your brain!
Wait, you can use Gaming Consoles for 'Constructive Activities' ? With a name like 'Gaming Console' i would not really expect it to be anything but a time wasting machine.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
They waste their time and money to "escape reality" only to find themselves back in the whole after purchasing said equipment, even if they got this stuff for "free" they would still use that money on frivilous things. It's a vicious cycle because people who do that are weak. Rich people are no different. There are those born with a silver spoon and waste it all and end up on the street.
The smart people are those that limit themselves from temptation and use their time, money and energy to generate wealth, and not just wealth in terms of more money, which is a given, but wealth in knowledge, beauty and health.
I've gone through this and sorta still in that vicious cycle due to my love of videogames. I can devote all of my time to learn about the stock market, VMWare, Linux, etc but OMG DIablo3 is so addictive. At least now I don't upgrade because I have a PC capable of playing all of my games and is approximately 2.5 years old. I'm slowly "growing up" because my savings is growing while my student loans, car payment are getting paid off, thanks to a good job.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
I got to do a lot of cool things as a kid but looking back at them the reason it was possible was my family had a reasonable bit of money. It wasn't all that cheap. Even simple things like a day at the museum that is like $50 for two kids and an adult, never mind food or any extras. That is amusing and educational, but for one day max, and realistically you probably don't stay all day. Well $50 will nearly get you a video game (most are $60 these days). Less used or on sale on Steam or something. That can entertain you for days on end.
So if a family doesn't have much money, it isn't hard to see why they'd choose games over museum visits, even if they understand it would be better educationally.
Hell I am setting up our labs (at a university) for a summer program for high school and middle school students right now. Cool summer engineering academy thing. Looks like it would be pretty fun and educational for geek type kids. However, it costs money. I don't know the details, that isn't my area, but only people who can pay, probably a fair bit (couple hundred is my guess) can get in.
Poor kids have less opportunity than rich kids. Poor kid's aren't getting dance lessons. Poor kids aren't going horseback riding. Poor kids aren't going to summer camp. Poor kids don't have a yard with a swimming pool to play in. Some live in such bad neighborhoods parents won't let them out of the house. Poor kids can't even play sports in school now because parents must pay for their equipment and provisioning. Video games and TV are a cheap form of entertainment for these children. That could explain the correlation - their parents can't afford the more affluent diversions that would tear them away from digital media.
Meanwhile the rich waste more time traveling abroad, attending charity balls, spending time on their boat, eating out, at the spa, and shopping.
It's like the poor are drawn to forms of entertainment that are relatively cheap.
Color me shocked!
I got my first computer at the age of 8 when my disabled mother received her back pay. It had an AMD k6-2, 64mb ram, and a 6gb hard drive, which honestly wasn't too shabby for 1998. My first PC game was Independence War, a space sim which you could mod if you had some knowledge of coding. So I kind of picked it up, and playing video games led me to go to school now for Computer Science to learn how to make the damn things.
It's not all bad.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
An Xbox is the real baseball and real glove equivalent that normal kids play with today.
A home theater to play it in is the uniform equivalent that rich kids play in.
Nethack, dungeonCrawl, NewGrounds, Wesnoth, game demos, and pirated games are the stick equivalent that poor kids play with.
Welcome to the digital era.
How about the ones that said "what's he doing" and stole another kid's marshmallow?
The concerns are brought to life in families like those of Markiy Cook, a thoughtful 12-year-old in Oakland who loves technology.
At home, where money is tight, his family has two laptops, an Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Wii, and he has his own phone. He uses them mostly for Facebook, YouTube, texting and playing games.
He particularly likes playing them on the weekends.
“I stay up all night, until like 7 in the morning,” he said, laughing sheepishly. “It’s why I’m so tired on Monday.”
His grades are suffering. His grade-point average is barely over 1.0, putting him at the bottom of his class. He wants to be a biologist when he grows up, he said.
Markiy attends Elmhurst Community Prep, located in a rough area (the school has a tribute hanging in its hallway to a 15-year-old girl recently stabbed to death by the father of her baby). Thirty-five percent of the students, like Markiy, are black, and most of the rest are Hispanic.
Modern proprietary computers are really just appliances to most people. The user is lightyears from the deeply intellectually interesting things about them. And he or she is legally as well as practically barred from really exploring the software. I started using machines that let me program in basic. There were applications, but also real (if very simple) computing and programming tools. Not so now.. And not so for many years
Say what you want about Linux on the desktop for everyday computing, but a Linux box at least has the potential of offering a gifted kid a free ticket to authentic intellectual growth. If he or she gets interested she can download source code for the OS and applications. And she can take advantage of educational materials and supportive communities. All for free. If a kid is playing games on a Windows or an Apple box and asks? "How does this crap really work?" she is kind of SOL. But on a FOSS box there is at least a small chance of digging deeper. Legally. And without paying a dime.
So perhaps we "do gooders" should be sure that some poor people have access to a few cheap Linux boxes. Maybe it will only to light a fire in the mind of that one kid in a hundred -- or that one kid in a thousand. There are such minds, of course. But they need some kindling to burst into flame. Don't believe me? Look at the story of Srnivsa Rmnujan or the story of Carl Friedrich Gauss These are two of the most sublime geniuses in the history of human thought. And they both came from hunger. (Ultimately they received patronage, but only after their genius was apparent.)
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Had an disagreement with my father the other day. A quick google lookup gave the correct answer :-)
Other than looking stuff up on google and calls/email, useful stuff my phone does navigation, manages stuff I have for sale (kijiji/craigslist), tracks my packages, provides a hotspot to my e-reader/laptop, allows extra security on my email, lets me look up movies, takes pictures, tracks the mileage of my car, controls the music on my MPD server, allows me to make inexpensive VOIP calls, allows me to keep up-to-date on my online banking, plays music while I'm out biking/hiking, scans barcodes, keeps note of calendar items such as birthdays/appointments, allows a connection to trade files with my fileserver, etc.
I suppose this depends on your definition of "constructive", but without a smart-device I'd likely miss more birthdays/appointments, have less track of my bills and other statistical information, and spend a lot more time near a computer /w internet to get various things done.
Buy $20 or $30 worth of [dumbphone] minutes every few months, and don't use minutes you can't afford.
Is that with or without a home phone? If without, I can't see looking for a new job on one minute a day.
Thrift stores.
It doesn't scale. If everybody wore their clothes out, what would there be to donate to thrift stores?
And what, pray tell, be constructive uses for game consoles, smart phones, etc. from the perspective of consumer use of said technologies?
Kahn on the other hand, is more Middle East as Kahn (according to Wikipedia!) is a variant of Cohen as in the Kohanim, who were the priests in Solomon's Temple. To bear the family name Kahn, therefore, is a mark of descent from the Temple Priests.
The thing about digital entertainment is that once you have the media, it costs no more money to spend another hour with it.
Lost productivity.
Your prices are also out of whack.
The Felt S22 is towards the low end for a "real" bike, and $150 won't even buy rich dad a pair of cycling shorts that he would be caught dead wearing. A rich dad is going to have much closer to $5000 in gear than $1350. Probably much more.
Of course, he could ride just as far, just as fast and as comfortably for well under $2000. But that is not waste, for some reason.
The only reason he can live with us is because he has been getting a housing allowance form the Navy. This is basically the conversation he had with his brother (also poor) on the phone last night:
"Yeah dude come out and visit. We can pay Xbox and Wii and watch TV and shit since we're both broke. It'd just be good to see you."
I talked to him a little about his finances after that call. He has $5k in credit card debt (maxed out with a 15% APR) that he makes minimum payments on, owes $6k on his car that is worth less than $5k, has a $110/month bill for his smart phone, and another $200/month bill for car insurance and misc monthly bills (other than utilities, stupid shit like satellite radio and multiple xbox live accounts). Right now he pays out over $500/month for things that he shouldn't of ever have gotten in first place and he sits around playing xbox, watching movies, and talking about how he is going to get a $70k/year "engineer type" job when he gets out of the navy. It's a pretty pathetic situation.
You off a bit.
Used XBox 360 + Used accessories + a few Used games and/or some games checked out from the library for free = $100.
Your numbers on the Bike could be accurate though.
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
If it wasn't for e-readers, we would be on our way to a world like Bradbury's 1950's classic.
Dumb us down, feed us drugs, just give us comics to "read" and TV to watch.... Hey!
That sounds pretty good!
If you paid $1200 for your bike, you probably should stay in the ghetto with the other chumps.</sarcasm>
Spending is out of control among the wealthy and, in particular, Silicon Valley yuppies. One fairly popular bike store here in the Bay Area/SF has a dozen "bikes on sale" none of which are priced lower $5000 and, believe it or not, these bicycles are priced to move.
Take a stroll in the Marina any day of the week, but Sundays are especially good. You'll see dozens of spandex-clad superheroes riding these carbon-frame bicycles that cost more than some automobiles. The population of super-cyclists is much higher in places like Sausalito.
In short, the GP actually underestimates the cost of pricey biking by an order of exponent.
blog
Going to the movies and spending 40$'s for an entertaining night for one family is MORE expensive then spending 50$'s on a game which will entertain the family for weeks or longer. In the long run, especially due to America's media outlets, it is cheaper to have technology then to spend time outside of the home.
A possible explanation about their behaviour is that they are addicted to pleasure.
When life is tough (which is likely the case when you are poor, since TV explains all day long that success=money), you tend to find ways to stand it, and the easiest way is to seek pleasure.
The constant seek of pleasure is addiction.
Playing games is an addiction, but it's not the most dangerous addiction (except when you spend more money than you earn).
I read somewhere that people who were able to stand frustration (=accepting not instant reward) were most successful in their lives than people searching for instant pleasure.
Sadly, my wife is very addicted to instant pleasure (food, television, shopping, ...), so I'm well aware about this behavior.
Isn't it kind of hypocritical to get up in "the poor's" ass on a forum like Slashdot? Are you being "productive" right now? Oh, right, when YOU waste time on the internet it's different.
and over complicating others. But the big one you're missing is that one of the main functions of any civilization is deciding who gets what, how, and why. How do we divvy up the spoils of civilization. When socialists talk about the 'safety net' they're taking this basic function of civilization for granted. Heck, most people do. It's the primary reason civilizations are formed. That and cooperation to achieve larger goals that benefit everyone.
:P. And if you haven't seen it yet watch this
That's what makes it hard for socialists to have a dialog with libertarians. I just finished (gave up) on a long thread with a libertarian over why it was our civilization allocated so much of it's output to 1% (Meg Whitman happen to be my straw man/gal, but I'm afraid it only served to confuse the issue further). Whether you like it or not a civilization will come up with some system to allocate it's resources. Libertarians maintain that natural order will optimize this. But then I watch CEOs wreak entire economies for their own short term gains and find it impossible to reconcile this. Combine that with the realities of out dog eat dog capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich and Libertarianism and the free market become hopeless ideals that inevitably descend into oppressive oligarchies or Somalian anarchy (depending on if there's enough money to maintain an army to oppress the civilians). I've yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise, but you're welcome to try. Now for the over simplification: Doctors don't function in the free market under the rules you set out. Read here why. Long story short is you don't have the specialized knowledge to know a good heart surgeon and you don't buy enough heart transplants to be a good judge of the product.
Oh, and one last jab at the free market: How do you reconcile massively increasing productivity putting workers out of work? Do we let those people starve (after all, forget safety net, now I'm talking outright socialism)? There's not enough work for them any more. We don't need them to work. What's more, as we need less and less of them supply and demand make their labor increasingly worthless. I guess they can all go work in those Biotech jobs from 1990... but now I'm just being flippant
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now that I have your attention . . . Read the article and it doesn't take too long to see this is all about growing government: 'The new divide is such a cause of concern for the Federal Communications Commission that it is considering a proposal to spend $200 million to create a digital literacy corps. This group of hundreds, even thousands, of trainers would fan out to schools and libraries to teach productive uses of computers for parents, students and job seekers.' This is the NYTs version of the money shot. Find a social problem (real or perceived) and argue that the solution is government intervention, because history is fucking replete with examples where the federal government stopped in and fixed a social problem. Feel the release, Matt Richtel you are a sexy genius! On a darker note computers represent communication - and why wouldn't a government not want to get involved and help the people with their strange little addiction?
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
You give any tool to those who want to better themselves and they will use the tool to make themselves better
You give the same tool to those who do not have any urge to better themselves and they will put the tool into entertainment purposes
For example:
When those with entrepreneurial inclination get their hands on vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles), they will use the vehicles for delivery, or they will learn to repair those vehicles, or they will find ways to improve on those vehicles, et cetera
Give the same vehicles to those who do not really want to do anything and they will use the vehicles to cruise around, to rob banks, and so on
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I can buy that. When I have money, i tend to go out. If I stay home to avoid spending money, I tend to get bored. Tv and video games are ways to pass the time that are close to free on an hourly basis.
When I read comments like this I get both sad and relieved at the same time. Sad, because it's true. Relieved, because I live on the other side of the Atlantic. Just saying, although it's perhaps slightly off topic, but the world is not the same everywhere.
Completely unscientific, anecdotal evidence to support this:
I've always noticed throughout my life that the poorer families who's homes I visited almost universally had larger TV's and more gadgets. I would always stop and wonder how in the hell these families could even afford such colossally huge TV's or how the kids could have all these electronic toys and such.
And then (as a kid) I'd go home and watch TV on a little 13" TV and program my little computer (sinclair) or try to design a portable game computer (10 x 10 array of red LED's and Z80 cpu).
As an adult, I have to wonder if I'd been given all that crap as a child if I would have ever bothered to learn to program and such. My family was lower middle class, not poor but not wealthy either, but my parents were smart. And as a parent, as a geek parent with computers and tech in my daily use, I do not shower my kids with gadgets and let them watch TV all day. They use paper and crayons and are learning to read, write, and socialize before being taught to use more advanced tools.
There does seem to be a societal problem with too much technology where it doesn't need to be. And its all about the choices we make. Parents can choose how to raise their kids. I don't care what your excuse is. If you are poor or you are rich, you can teach your kids the same values, the same knowledge. Or you can let them be vegetables.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
And yet it is the business gurus that keep screaming that networking is the way to get ahead in life. It's not what you know, it's who you know, etc. Too bad the business gurus don't get deeper into the details unless you pay $1,000.00 to attend their seminar.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This may explain why i'm not addicted to phone or computer.I see electronic industries as someone who wants to limit my life!
There is nothing magical about that type of association. They are not any better or worse than any other type of large organization.
Organizations are only as good as the people that make them up.
Once organizations get to a certain size, they are all 'Blood in, Blood out'.
OR too big to fail.
Group think, bubble think and 'Us vs. Them' can afflict any organization.
Messiah's, Gurus, and a willing herd of zealot holy warriors can and do occur anywhere and all the time.
Rape and Pillage are satisfying on a deep emotional level, be it from a Horseback, a C-Suite, a Pulpit, or a Parliament.
There have been, and are, plenty of bad governments. Hitler.
Governments do bad things. Japanese Internment Camps. Gitmo.
The Mafia originated to provide Justice.
'Government Good', 'Corporation Bad' is a Blind Belief.
This is no big powerful Daddy to look after you.
Stop looking for Right and Wrong codified in a 2 volume set, and a Mommy to run to and set things Right when Billy is picking on you.
Stand on you balcony right now and Bark and Howl. Who gives a shit what the neighbors think? You're a man. You got testosterone and you're not afraid to use it!
Let it out man. HOWL!
I will wait.
Right on!
I'm proud of you! Doesn't that feel better?
Who's the big dog now? Woof. Woof Woof Woof.
If the Governments all fell tomorrow, and all the Banks defaulted, and Wall Street and the City of London were smoking craters?
Another big, powerful organization, with Overlords, Cops and Money and Guns and Lawyers and Drones would boot up in about 3 days.
We would all be using Paypal, Google Dollars or IBM Bitcoins.
Government, Corporations. Piffle. Shades and Shadows.
Go out tomorrow and kick some ass. Bring some gold back to your cave.
Are there people in Somalia who have assumed a special "right" to initiate coercion against others, while at the same time, denying their victims the natural human right to defend themselves against that coercion?
Then anarchy does not exist in Somalia.
(That is, incidentally, the true definition of government. It is the group assuming a special "right" to employ coercion as a business model. Whether you are talking about a rag-tag local warlord or a world superpower is irrelevant -- the concept is the same.)
Anarchy does NOT mean "no rules", as the propaganda teaches you. Anarchy means "no rulers". HUGE difference.
People are generally poor because they make shitty life-choices, generally around the failure to delay gratification or understanding long-term cause-effect.
Is it really shocking that these people continue to make those sorts of decisions when presented with technology that allows them to do that even easier?
-Styopa
Dave Ramsey has said for a long time that if you want to get ahead and out of debt to shoot your TV first thing. He's right and we all know it.
Yeah, I always wondered how so many people have $400 dollar phones, overrun their cell plans by $200 every month, eat fast food for every meal, own all the gaming consoles with hundreds of games, have nice large TVs with the full sports package from the cable company, have lots of toys for their kids, but live in a trailer home, can't afford a car, and collect welfare. This is where the wealthy's "fair share" in taxes goes.
the world is not the same everywhere.
Is your country able to absorb millions of refugees from the United States' anticircumvention regime?
Well, to be fair, the manufacturer of your road bike is probably a lot less evil than Sony.
An Xbox is the real baseball and real glove equivalent that normal kids play with today.
The glove was bought second-hand for fifty cents. The Xbox will run you more like $500 (depending on how many games and accessories you buy).
The glove gets you fresh air and sunshine and exercise. The Xbox sits you in the air conditioning on your fat American ass.
The glove gives you eye-hand coordination. The Xbox gives you twitch reflexes.
Etc.
Wow, condoms where expensive back in the day. Fifty cents in the 1950's was like $4.50 today. And USED!?
And really, while hand-eye coordination is important, I'd say flexibility and endurance got more of a workout.