[brundolf]

This trope is always getting trotted out by fiscal conservatives without any actual evidence. It's an imaginative extension of the "being poor means you have poor character" trope.

Also, when it extends beyond actual luxuries to basics like having a refrigerator (yes, I've actually heard this one) or the classic "an HD TV" (when was the last time you saw a non-HD TV for sale?), or in this case an iPhone (smartphones are no longer optional luxuries, and a used iPhone is one of the better investments in that category), it suggests that poor people should be robots who totally forego the very most fundamental creature-comforts until they've managed to turn their world around completely. It's dehumanizing.

[nicharesuk]

I don't know if it suggests that poorer people should be robots, but that they should take more care in their purchasing. TV's are absolutely not a necessity nor really a good use of your income in any form (though not really that expensive, what is expensive are subscription plans).

I think it's interesting to describe things like TV's as "very most fundamental creature comforts" when someone has less than 1000$ in savings. If you are that strapped for cash you should recognize that every dollar you do have is extremely valuable and should be used to put you in a better financial situation.

I don't agree with the idea that being poor means having poor character, it's often out of situational issues or ignorance, but the issue arises when we start to defend legitimate misuses of money and say "well people deserve to live comfortably"

[brundolf]

You can easily get a medium-sized TV these days for $200. You need an internet connection for utilitarian purposes anyway, and with that you can watch a number of cheap or free streaming services, not to mention old-fashioned airwaves TV.

I would say that having a modicum of entertainment/escapism at the end of the day is a reasonably fundamental creature-comfort that we shouldn't be judging people for spending their limited money on.

[nicharesuk]

You've repeated fundamental as if that makes it any more correct. There are also other, much cheaper and potentially more rewarding things such as reading, drawing, cooking (which helps save money too) that can take up your time and save your wallet.

I'm merely responding to the idea that somehow we have gotten it in our heads that we "need" to have some level of comfort which for most of human existence would be considered insane luxury. (I'm aware you called out people pointing out fridges are a luxury but it is indeed true and it's great that technology has made them so ubiquitous that our lives are that much better)

What I'm getting at is, having grown up very poor, put myself through college, coming out with no debt and creating an extremely sizeable nest egg for myself, all while forgoing basic "creature comforts" such as a TV, smart phone, even a nice bed (I found free mattresses on craigslist, which I still sleep on to this day), living in co-ops and other alternative forms of housing, I can't shake the feeling that we are in a sense enabling poor choices.

This is not to say my experience proves my point, but that I'm less sympathetic to claims of inequality when they are also followed up with notions that we should redistribute wealth in some way. The problems that exist are systemic in the legal-systems, tax-systems, and educations systems of the US, redistributing wealth seems like making some people bleed because others are also bleeding.

[flippinburgers]

There is a material difference between a $1K smart phone and a $100 smart phone.

There is a material difference between shoes that cost $200 and shoes that cost $20.

These things add up and acting like they don't is just silly.

[brundolf]

> There is a material difference

Of course there is. I'm saying poor people shouldn't be judged for buying the $100/$20 versions, and also that it's an unsubstantiated myth that they're broadly wasting money by buying the $1000/$200 versions.

[rzz3]

The poster you’re replying to had a valid point about the meaning of this data—it’s not some trope or judgement. Calculating someone’s net worth in this way is not considering these things on which money is being spent. In the most non-judge mental way possible, I would love to see some deeper analysis here. Two different households could have the same income, but one could save more (at the expense of missing out on a lot of things that increase quality of life) and another could save less. I don’t at all think badly of the family who saves less, but it is a valid factor to consider in an objective analysis of income inequality’s effect on households.