Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#21

Post by Adam503 »

joechung wrote: post #18
Adam503 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think there's poor people in Pala Alto, CA, huh? Wikipedia has per capita income in Palo Alto, CA as $56,257. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_per_cap...

Given the number of people whose income is over $56K, that implies that there are just as many, if not more, people whose income is below that.

The US standard for poverty is roughly $10,500 a year. Palo Alto's median income more than 5 times the US poverty standard.

Go find me a place IN Palo Alto someone whose income is $10,500 a year can pay what the US Fed. Gov't standard for what it considers reasonable rent... 30% of one's income to live IN Palo Alto.

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#22

Post by Adam503 »

rarestnews wrote: post #19
Adam503 wrote: post #10

Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.

My friend told me the other day he was in a bus, and there he saw a very poor immigrant who was talking on his cell whole trip. I thought this was weird and unusual, but he told me he saw similar thing lots of times. Many of my friends who earn little, spend ALL of their money on unnecessary purchases, like newest cellphones, newest clothing, etc, they're deep in debt and continue spending this way.

There's some really incredible things people say "a friend of theirs saw." Here's a regularly updated page with 25 of those things people swear their friends were eyewitness to...

http://www.snopes.com/info/top25uls.asp

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#23

Post by varjag »

Adam503 wrote: post #13
olefoo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a $20 Billion (with a B) a year market in prepaid cell phone services that says you are wrong. And as is often the case, providing convenient retail solutions for small purchasers can be more profitable than demanding long term contracts. As with many things, when it comes to mobile services the poor pay more and get less.

Those are lower middle class people buying those services. The poor would be choosing between their cellphones and shelter. Am not saying there are no people that choose to be homelessness and keep their cellphone, but there aren't very many.

It is quite obvious from the article that "poor" was used there in sense of "not rich". Like, when one says "I'm a poor student" he doesn't necessarily mean he lives in cardboard box and hunts for his lunch in city park.

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#24

Post by mbrubeck »

Adam503 wrote: post #13
olefoo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a $20 Billion (with a B) a year market in prepaid cell phone services that says you are wrong. And as is often the case, providing convenient retail solutions for small purchasers can be more profitable than demanding long term contracts. As with many things, when it comes to mobile services the poor pay more and get less.

Those are lower middle class people buying those services. The poor would be choosing between their cellphones and shelter. Am not saying there are no people that choose to be homelessness and keep their cellphone, but there aren't very many.

It's not at all unusual to see homeless people with mobile phones. Some homeless shelters even provide them to clients, to help them with job hunting. And it's not like anyone is "choosing to be homeless" by spending $5/month on a prepaid cell phone.

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#25

Post by pavel_lishin »

rarestnews wrote: post #19
Adam503 wrote: post #10

Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.

My friend told me the other day he was in a bus, and there he saw a very poor immigrant who was talking on his cell whole trip. I thought this was weird and unusual, but he told me he saw similar thing lots of times. Many of my friends who earn little, spend ALL of their money on unnecessary purchases, like newest cellphones, newest clothing, etc, they're deep in debt and continue spending this way.

Ain't that the American dream?

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#26

Post by olefoo »

Adam503 wrote: post #20
jibiki wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No true Scotsman would own a cellphone! In all seriousness, "poor" to me does not mean homeless. In fact, there are many people above the poverty line who I consider poor (the so-called "working poor".) Obviously this is different for you, and it's silly to have an argument over semantics.

There's official US. Gov't standards for these types of things, you know. I use the same terminology and standards the US. Gov't does. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.htm... If someone insists on trying to communicate applying their own individual definition to terms of common usage that are different than those others in a region uses, they themselves are the ones that will have difficulty c…

If you go through tracfone.com you can get into a phone and have very minimal service for less than $100 a year. That's slightly less than 1% of gross income, which is probably low for what people in that situation spend on communication.

Now you or I would find the service cripplingly limited. But for someone who really needs it. It's there.

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#27

Post by omouse »

varjag wrote: post #23
Adam503 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are lower middle class people buying those services. The poor would be choosing between their cellphones and shelter. Am not saying there are no people that choose to be homelessness and keep their cellphone, but there aren't very many.

It is quite obvious from the article that "poor" was used there in sense of "not rich". Like, when one says "I'm a poor student" he doesn't necessarily mean he lives in cardboard box and hunts for his lunch in city park.

"I'm a poor student" he doesn't necessarily mean he lives in cardboard box and hunts for his lunch in city park.

Well if you're a sociology student or something... :P

Re: Bruce Sterling: Poor folk love their cellphones

#30

Post by abrahamsen »

_pius wrote: post #3

The article was thought-provoking for me, as I hadn't heard the Sterling talk, but she lost me here: I myself mostly post links to this column, hoping that the self-promotion is transparent enough that people can easily ignore a link or click it if they’re curious .... I can’t help wondering if I’ve turned into some banged-up street kid, stuck in a cruel and crowded neighborhood, trying to convince everyone that regu…

>> in big, beautiful houses, with precious, irreplaceable objects.

> And what is stopping her from doing that?

Lack of money, perhaps? Even the non-material first part

>> among family and friends

can be difficult if everyone are busy making ends meet.

Post reply on HN