Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceilingcorner | Hacker News Reader

A lot of things that are social “musts” today were “wants” 30 years ago. Smart phones, unlimited data, eating out 3-4 times a week, Uber Eats delivery. None of this is necessary in order to survive, but not indulging is seen as odd or socially awkward.

View on HN

Smartphones replace a lot of things though: * camera (including film & development costs) * camcorder * long-distance phone service * answering machine * portable music player (walkman, iPod, etc.) * GPS navigation devices

Depending on their use they can save a lot of money relative to the the products/services they replace

I'd disagree about "not necessary". Cellphones are a necessity now because payphones have gone the way of the dinosaur, there go 100 dollars for a family plan, internet is a necessity, there go 50 dollars more, and especially the expenses for the second car because no one can make do on one income, especially at the lower end of the income scale.

And childcare expenses, of course. Especially childcare.

Big difference between a 5 year old $50 Android smartphone and the latest $800 iPhone. I know a lot of people who own the latter yet claim to struggle financially.

It's not the one-off expenses that hurt, it's the recurring expenses every month. 100 dollars for your regular family plan, that's 1200 dollars every year that you can't cut, even if the kids get the cheapest Android 8 phone you can find.

Also, when your cellphone is how you access the Internet because you can't afford a decent laptop, at some point it makes sense to go for a more powerful phone.

A $150 Android would work just as well in that case.

The difference between the $800 phone and the $150 phone amortized over 3 years is 18 dollars/month. That's not what breaks the bank.

It’s a bit higher than $18/mo, and your average american changes their phone every 2 years, and further phones are not $800 anymore. But let’s assume they are, over 2 years that’s $34/mo and let’s say 4 people in the plan. Over the same period you’ve doubled your phone bill. If $100/mo is expensive then so should the $134/mo or so to upgrade phones every 2 years.

The penniless American will keep their phone for longer than the average 2 years. You'd actually predict that the parents hand down the old phone to the child when they get a new one, and now we know why Apple recently extended the time they keep their phones in support.

> The penniless American will keep their phone for longer than the average 2 years.

Sure but they’re not the majority. This article from forbes (a bit old now) was enlightening. But note that those running their phones into the ground aren’t too far behind those upgrading as soon as they can.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/07/09/how-of...

If you are struggling financially who cares if you are paying an extra $10 a month to rent-to-own an $800 phone? That sort of shit is just more judgemental dog whistling.

Everything that you don’t agree with isn’t “judgmental dog whistling.”

I have been watching the laziest members of society sit at the top and complain about the hardest working people with the shittiest jobs for 40 years.

But how is that any different than saying in 1918 a car was a want but in 1950 a car was a requirement for many people?

I suspect that the answer to these types of questions is that most people don't want to admit how mind-fucked we all are in to believing the bullshit that we are inundated with from the most powerful classes and how little freedom and financial mobility exists in the USA.

I’m not sure how requiring a car (because you need to drive to work) is equivalent to owning the latest hot gadget or having food delivered to you on demand.

Was it your intent to conflate things that are arguably necessities for participating in modern life ("smart phones, unlimited data") with things that are not ("eating out 3-4 times a week, uber eats")?

Because when someone pushed back on you, saying that smartphone ownership now is like car ownership became at some point in the past -- a necessity -- and then you changed it from "smart phones" to "the latest hot gadget".

So it's no longer clear whether you think smart phones and unlimited data are indulgences like ubereats is, or where one might draw the line according to you.

Also living space per person has nearly doubled since the 70s.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-us-homes-today-are-1000-s...

This was linked elsewhere and it only talks about home ownership and says nothing about renting which is the only viable option for many Americans. It doesn't say how many are renting vs owning and how renting has fared in growth/decline per capita.

Agree, it also doesn't help that we haven't been building enough new housing to keep up with growth.

> eating out 3-4 times a week

What percentage of the western population eats out 3-4 times a week? I'd bet it isn't more than 10-20%, depending on the country.

> Uber Eats delivery

Not sure the people who do the delivering can afford having food delivered in turn (at least not 3-4 times a week).

According to the survey, 56 percent say they dine at a restaurant, get take out or have a meal delivered 2 to 3 times a week.

Fully 10 percent said they eat out 4 to 6 times a week, and 6 percent said they eat out everyday.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/05/16/survey-shows-how-o...

It's unfortunate that the link to the actual survey:

https://www.fourth.com/resource/truth-about-dining-out-infog...

is now dead. All this is is a news site quoting it, second-hand, and I have seen enough news sites get original reporting wrong not to place a great deal of stock in them getting it right.

This seems to contain the stats you were looking for https://www.fourth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/US_Infogra...

Or even worse, poor. These are honestly very decadent habits and the majority of people can't afford them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com