But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. So either a category of people exists that do not need/cannot afford $1500 phones, or $1500 phones are a basic necessity that every human needs alongside food and shelter.

I would argue that yes, in the first world a smartphone is almost required, but there are plenty of great <$200 Android phones that do everything one would deem essential. $1500 smartphones are now simply a status symbol alongside Nike's and Rolex's, and have been for some time.

I have an iPhone because it is (for my needs) a better machine. I wear Nike running shoes because they fit me well and that gets me a safer workout.

Some things have functional advantages even if they also signal status. The working class has at least as much need for functionality as anyone else. A $400 phone vs a $200 one could easily be more useful to a poorer person than a richer one. Same with $100 vs $25 shoes.

My Seiko tells time as well as a Rolex (though not as well as an even cheaper quartz watch would). But even here, where status is definitely a factor, it’s not like the Rolex has no additional value: it has resale value, and aesthetic value.

> But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition.

Sure - but what should the wealth ratio between the top 1% and everyone else be? Perhaps if the ratio were lower, everyone would be able to afford great phones.

Also, who ‘deems’ what is essential?

Or maybe no one could afford great phones

An iphone is as disposable as a kleenex. It is not an asset, at least not a better one than a 250 phone.

That depends on how you use it. Lots of people make professional 4K videos on their iPhones, for example.