Being frugal is for the rich • Hacker News Board

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#301

Post by squeegee5 » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

your-nanny wrote: post #298

Consultant32452 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the interests of the rich and the nonrich are systematically at odds This is not universally true. It is not true across individuals among the rich/nonrich nor is it true across specific agenda items. This caricature you've created for these two groups is called classism. You are no better than the people who think all poor people are stupid or lazy. >yet only one of these groups have any great power to see to it th…

Systematically does not mean universally. It means, at a minimum, that their interests diverge non randomly. Saying that rich and nonrich have different interests is not controversial, except to those intent on denying what is obviously true. Either you are ill equipped to engage in a discussion on this topic or you are being utterly disingenuous; certainly you have misrepresented what I have said in ways that push a…

Your class warfare demagoguery is entertaining. The entirety of notable human civilization is defined by exploitation, and nobody who matters will ever care. Except politicians who will use your whining and vote to do whatever they were planning to do anyways. Vast inequality is, and always has been, the mark of a great civilization.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#302

Post by eindiran » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #225

KingMob wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plummeting costs of technology over time make it a poor barometer for measuring wealth. Instead of mobile phones and TVs, look at bigger items like health care, housing, and education, all of which have gotten more expensive (in the case of education, astoundingly so) even as inflation-adjusted wages have decreased.

There's a simpler test here. If you weren't sure what color your skin would be, what income bracket you'd be born into, what level of health you'd have at birth, or even what country you'd be born in, would you rather be born in 2018 or 1950?

This test has been around for a while, more recently under the name "veil of ignorance" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#303

Post by Frondo » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #224

your-nanny wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might help, actually. Your assumption is that what the rich do with their mmonet doesn't actually hurt the poor; but it can. Itcab be used to purchase narratives and political influence in ways deeply harmful

You're still focusing your attention on supposed bad behavior of the rich rather than the wellbeing of the poor. If you think the poor need something, like say more funding for inner city schools, then say that and suggest a reasonable tax, perhaps a tax on luxury goods that would disproportionately affect the wealthy. Or if there's a specific bad behavior, such as pharmaceutical advertising, talk about that. But jus…

You're free not to care about inequality, so go for it.

I haven't seen any convincing evidence-based argument that a high degree of inequality is either neutral or good for society as a whole, nor do I have any philosophical leanings that suggest that it is an acceptable byproduct of an otherwise fair and just society.

Going by both evidence (health outcomes, class mobility, etc) and by my philosophical leanings that it don't seem right for so few people to own so much (when ownership itself is a purely fictional thing), I'm going to keep talking about inequality as a Bad Thing to be addressed.

Don't like it? You do you, but telling me I'm focusing my behavior on one thing or another is about the least compelling thing to say.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#304

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 11:30 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #253

azernik wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this frequently in right-wing circles; see e.g. the complaints about people on welfare having (shock!) smartphones.

Smartphones are an expensive luxury, not a necessity. I think the expectation is that people on the public dole should be trying to save as much as possible and try to get off of welfare.

A moderately capable smartphone can be had for $100 and up, especially if you're not aiming for the latest model. That makes it very competitive with laptops, and provides the owner with communications, mapping, and access to all kinds of services which will make it easier to get by and considerably easier to do things like job hunting. Dismissing it as an expensive luxury is absurd.

Re: Being frugal is for the rich

#305

Post by ericd » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #304

ericd wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smartphones are an expensive luxury, not a necessity. I think the expectation is that people on the public dole should be trying to save as much as possible and try to get off of welfare.

A moderately capable smartphone can be had for $100 and up, especially if you're not aiming for the latest model. That makes it very competitive with laptops, and provides the owner with communications, mapping, and access to all kinds of services which will make it easier to get by and considerably easier to do things like job hunting. Dismissing it as an expensive luxury is absurd.

I don't think it's absurd. The $100 purchase price is a tiny fraction of the all-in cost of the phone, and if you're touting its usefulness in lieu of a laptop, you're talking about using a large amount of data, which usually means an expensive voice+data plan ($600-800/yr). Otherwise, a laptop and using the internet at one's local library is a much better option if utility and saving money are the priorities. A prepaid flip phone is usually better for actually making calls.