Re:America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
by throwaway3699 on Thursday February 11, 2021 @05:22PM
(#26108215)
I think people definitely need a phone. Maybe not an iPhone or even a computer, but access to email and internet is a must for applying to jobs, paying taxes or... finding out where to get Covid jabs.
It's the same way you don't need a car either, but you're going to struggle.
Re:America's 1% Has Taken $50T From the Bottom 90%
by findthewords on Thursday February 11, 2021 @03:36PM
(#26106774)
"But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is."
I take it as a sign of the deflationary nature of technology and economies of scale.
Capitalism is a very fuzzy word. I'd say markets and the price mechanism clearly work better than barter. Poorly regulated capitalism is unhealthy.
The iPhone is a luxury product within a category of luxury products. No one needs a smart phone to be successful in life - you don't need it to educate yourself, to find jobs, to do work, to entertained, etc. It could be used for all those things, but it isn't a prerequisite or the only way. But the fact that the vast majority of adults in the US can afford the disposable income to acquire such a luxury, a device that we could scarcely envision 15 years ago, is a sign of how healthy capitalism is. But leaving America aside - consider as well that globally, extreme poverty has plummeted under capitalism (https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under...).
People today have greater purchasing power, standards of living, and life expectancy than ever before, at every income level. To claim that people somehow cannot afford the basics in a country where immigrants regularly show up, live frugally, grind, save, and find a way to thrive, seems disconnected from reality. Instead of blaming the system fully, some blame must also be apportioned for those who don't show the personal responsibility required to manage their life well. That's not insulting, it's just common sense in my opinion.
> Asking the wealthy to pay a greater share to improve society is perfectly reasonable.
How is this not explicitly unfair and discriminatory?