Hacker News Reader

Comment by pessimizer | Hacker News Reader

> the kids are wearing Nikes and playing on iphones.

This is investment. If your kids are socially rejected at school and can't get on the internet, are they going to be better off in the long term or worse off?

If you are poor, looking poor is not going to help you up, it's going to drive you farther into poverty. It's the same impulse that makes lower-middle class parents go into debt to put braces on their kids' perfectly functional teeth (in the US.) Your kids are going to have to impress fellow students, charm their teachers, get into colleges, and interview for jobs. A bunch of people who don't see class are going to see your crooked teeth.

View on HN

Not to mention: an iphone (or any smartphone really) is a really efficient investment. I'm not sure, but for a few hundred dollars you have a very good device already.

Compare that to my own growing up, and we had separate costs for a TV, a radio, we would save up for a walkman or CD player, internet started off as dial-up at the library, then a PC. We'd buy CD's with games and things like Encarta, we'd record or rent films on a video recorder, etc etc etc. And all of those things had to be shared.

Now, with a smartphone, you have all of the above and then some - at a one time investment. Each of those individual devices back then cost the same as a single decent smartphone does nowadays.

I really don't see the issue. I mean I kinda get the objections, because for some reason smartphones are still considered luxury items (but only if you're poor), but it's such an empowering tool (and a source of distraction, which is something everyone needs).

i don't think it's smartphones that are considered luxury items, it's the $1000 iphones when a $50 android will provide all those benefits just fine.

But then you can't even browse the web properly with these, though. Not with all those fat Javascript-heavy pages and the whole "RAM is cheap" prevailing development mentality nowadays.

the 80/20 rule still applies. $50 is probably too low of a price point, but the example works if you compare a $250-400 android phone to a $1000 apple/samsung flagship. I could buy those phones if I wanted to, but I'm getting by just fine with my pixel 4a. hell, my pixel 2 was still perfectly serviceable but for the lack of security updates.

$50 to $400 is basically one order of magnitude, though. So the argument changes a lot.

kinda, but kinda not. $1000 is still a lot more than $400. I consider $600 to be a meaningful amount of money. it's definitely not a good move to spend that much on a phone if $600 matters to you. in any case, this conversation is drifting off the rails (or was derailed from the start). the iphone SE exists and sells for $400. with apple's track record for updates, that might be the best value on the entire market right now. I wouldn't consider it irresponsible for anyone to purchase that phone. I'm also not sure I believe that large amounts of poor people are buying brand new $1000 iphones anyway. most poor people I know are using whatever cheap phone happens to be supported by a local MVNO.

perhaps. now that i think about it i was buying my kids $50 androids when they came of age, but with the last two that didn't seem to cut it. i spent more like $100 with an extra $20 for an extra SD card.

for myself i paid under $250 for my android and i'm a professional full stack developer with android as part of that stack. (essential ph-1 phone on clearance sale on ebay).

I understand there is social pressure, but then pretty much anything can be bucketed under investment by this standard. Is a nice car and nice house also investment so the kids don't get rejected at school? At certain level of income, sacrifices need to be made, and I would argue Nikes and iPhones are luxuries, not necessities. e.g. you can get a pair of good quality shoes that costs less than Nikes, and a functional smart phone for less than an iphone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com