Seth Arndt is a Tool

[wild little fox]

My iphone was a gift from a sweet friend when she upgraded. I pay $45/month to month with Straight Talk.

There are two medically fragile people in my family that I care for. My mother needs to be able to call me 24/7. Also, had a bad PTSD episode yesterday while driving in the city. I was able to text my SO. I also had the option of calling or texting my therapist. I rely on my phone for my contact in the outside world. I am taking an herb class and learning how to do leatherwork via this iPhone.

Even having my mother cover my phone and car insurance, I still qualify for food stamps and Oregon health plan.

---------

I know more than a few people who live in their vans because that's all they can afford. They have cell phones, TVs, and computers. Most of them live on $500/month. Is that poor enough?

Seth Arnt knows nothing about the way the world works.

[ILoveJellybeans]

A poor person might have something expensive, like a iPhone or a designer handbag and still be poor. Maybe they bought it before they lost their job, maybe they were given it as a gift for their birthday, maybe they saved up for years to get themselves something nice that would last longer than buying a ton of cheap ones that would break easier. No use selling all your stuff when you become poor and replacing it with a load of cheap crap instead.

[Savoring Samsara]

A poor person might have something expensive, like a iPhone or a designer handbag and still be poor. Maybe they bought it before they lost their job, maybe they were given it as a gift for their birthday, maybe they saved up for years to get themselves something nice that would last longer than buying a ton of cheap ones that would break easier. No use selling all your stuff when you become poor and replacing it with a load of cheap crap instead.

Same goes for the tattoos mentioned in a post above. Also, if a person is friends with an apprentice tattoo artist, they might be getting that ink for free in exchange for being the artist's practice canvas, so to speak.

[wtylcf]

I think part of the cell phone/land line issue is because here in Canada, we have one of, if not the most, expensive cell phone service in the world, thanks to the big 3 companies owning all the infrastructure. We get royally screwed here and land lines really are a lot cheaper for most people. I have a grandfathered in service that is cheaper than anything I could get now that's $16/mth for 50 minutes total & 50 texts. No data. Obviously I do not have a smart phone. The same plan now would be $20/mth. If you pay by the minute it's 35 cents.

I can't remember exactly how much our land line is, probably around $20/mth or less after the discount for bundling. And obviously that has unlimited incoming & outgoing. We did have 2 pay as you go cells for a long time, but then we had to use Skype for long distance/my mother's incessant need to talk to me every freaking day.

Interesting stuff. I'm Canadian and haven't had a land line since 2005, when I moved out to my first apartment and discovered the land line hookup fee was around $200. I've moved 4 times since then, and have gone from paying $20 for a basic phone, to $55 for a non smartphone with some data capability, to $35 a month for a full smartphone. For me, it's a total necessity for safety to have a phone, and the smartphone part is a luxury that makes my life so much better. I'm moving again in a few weeks, and all I'll have to do is change my number to a new area code online, free of charge. I think cell phones make total sense as a solution for poor people instead of a land line, if they are able to obtain one with the credit they have and if they are, like me, moving a lot between different addresses.

[rward]

I actually wouldn't have a problem going phone-free, other than no 911 access, but I know I'm the exception. I avoid using the phone and I do not give out my phone number. I dislike the fact that there's no paper trail, I get annoyed when the phone interrupts what I'm doing, and even when I was looking for a job, I found that nearly all potential employers contacted me by email. There was about half a year where I lived alone where I didn't have a phone (I had internet). And no, I didn't use any Skype-type things, either. I just don't like it.

Edit: That said, I've made it clear my issue is with the idea that a cell phone in particular is somehow a necessity. It's wonderful that in some places a cell phone is cheaper. It's sad that in some places, it's the only available phone. But again, that doesn't make it a necessity across the board.

Well, how privileged of you! You have access to the internet and a reliable computer to use it. You also have the sort of job where your employer will contact you via email.

Now, step off your privileged step and join the poors for a moment: Internet is expensive. Computers are expensive. Fixing a computer and keeping it up to date is expensive. And McDonalds and other low end employers won't contact you via email. In fact, most shift work these days is "on demand". In other words, they schedule workers exactly as they need them, when they need them, so your employer expects you to be available at a moment's notice. If you fail to show for a last minute shift, you'll get less hours next week in favor of the employee who did show.

So tell me, how could you possibly keep up with that without a cell phone? How could you ever leave the house, even to run and get a gallon of milk, if you knew that your employer might call at any minute, and if you weren't there to pick up the phone, your hours will be cut?

[singsingsing]

Interesting. I'm Canadian, and the only people I can think of off the top of my head who still have a landline are my grandparents. I think that having a landline would be cheaper than a cellphone - but not cheaper than a landline AND a cellphone. So if you have to choose one, most people are going to choose the cellphone.

[nelliebelle1197]

I actually wouldn't have a problem going phone-free, other than no 911 access, but I know I'm the exception. I avoid using the phone and I do not give out my phone number. I dislike the fact that there's no paper trail, I get annoyed when the phone interrupts what I'm doing, and even when I was looking for a job, I found that nearly all potential employers contacted me by email. There was about half a year where I lived alone where I didn't have a phone (I had internet). And no, I didn't use any Skype-type things, either. I just don't like it.

Edit: That said, I've made it clear my issue is with the idea that a cell phone in particular is somehow a necessity. It's wonderful that in some places a cell phone is cheaper. It's sad that in some places, it's the only available phone. But again, that doesn't make it a necessity across the board.

But you have internet access. That makes a difference. Not all poor people have it or are even literate.

I work in social services and see no problem with clients having the devices. It is not anyone's business to judge or feel they have a right to decide if a low-income person needs a smartphone. One provider here, MetroPCS, will give you unlimited text, talk and data on $50 Samsung for $30/month. That is a much better use of resources for a poor person and gives a child in the family access to internet for research and homework purposes and gives the adult internet access as well.

[J'ean Skirt]

Why would someone get annoyed seeing a poor person with a smart phone?

Because, DUH, poor people don't deserve nice things. They should have nothing and be happy about it. /snark

And that's really what it's about. But, let's be honest, in this context "poor" is often a replacement for a much uglier word.

I was a poor single mother, and I in no way believe that that obliged me to not have nice things. I and my kids still had nice clothes, toys, electronics from when I was married and had a very comfortable income, and my mother bought me an iPhone when they first came out cause she knew I would enjoy it a lot.

We've given away old phones to friends when we've upgraded. Quite honestly the amount we'd get from selling them wasn't worth the hassle of selling them.

And that's what the "poor people shouldn't have nice things" contingent doesn't always understand. Selling possessions isn't a way to support yourself or deal with financial problems. There is an ongoing discussion about how people have refrigerators *in their apartments* so they can't be poor. Well, um, have you ever rented an apartment that didn't have a fridge? I sure haven't. And TVs? They're cheap these days. And people give them away.

We just cleaned out a bunch of nice stuff through freecycle. Some poor person may now have a working espresso machine! OH NOES!!!

A long term unemployed person I know has sold off a bunch of his stuff to make his rent this month. Which is great, but what about next month? Or the month after that?

Why on earth were my possessions anyone else's business? Was it particularly cause I was poor that other people get to feel personally effected by what I own? What about now I'm comfortably middle class again? Will my phone and iPad piss people off for some reason?

I just find it bizarre that people are so invested in other people's lives that they think they have the right to dictate what people in different socio economic groups should own.

Toxic politics and "the southern strategy." "My tax money goes to support you, so you shouldn't have anything better than I do." "I can't afford a cell phone, so no one who makes less money than I do should have one."

Life isn't fair. But some people never learned that lesson when they were little.

[frumper-rump]

When I volunteered for a women's shelter, they had a program where they gave old donated phones to clients so that they could call 911 if they encountered their abuser violating a restraining order. The phones had absolutely no plan for any other minutes per month, but they could still call 911 as long as they were charged.

I've heard about that type of program. Years ago my son's (church affiliated) daycare collected cell phones and accessories for a program that assisted wormen who escaped domestic violence situations. I think we have the low income cell phones in Alabama now. I see commercials for them anyway.

[salex]

A cell phone isn't a necessity. But in many cases (you being an exception) a telephone is. And a cell phone is a logical and rational decision for many people.

A cell phone may not be a necessity, nor a phone to Live or Survive. However, to live in 2013 and get a job, be reached by a child's school, etc, having a phone is critical. It isn't as though we have 2x per day mail service, or that a teacher will be able to say "Opie, run to Bobby's house and tell Mrs. Smith that Bobby broke his arm." In most places in the USA that I travel for work, land lines are considered the phones of the rich or the old. I only have one right now because my cable/internet bundle with one was cheaper than the plan without. I don't know the phone number for it. A person may also need to have an email contact for hearing from potential employers, and a phone can do that as well, if getting to a library is difficult.

[FreeJosie]

Cell phones don't have to be expensive. I have a non-smart phone with a pay-as-you-go plan. You have control over how much you talk and pay, so it's quite cheap for those who only use it for emergencies or to give out contact information to employees. I can see how some may get annoyed at seeing a poor person with a smartphone.

Why should that annoy anyone? It's no one's business.

[RosyDaisy]

I just saw a commercial where my state (Alabama) offers free cells phones with 100 talk minutes with the option for the person to buy extras like texting and data. Here's a link with more info: http://www.assurancewireless.com. This is sponsored by Virgin Mobile and is available to people on certain types of public assistance.

[patsymae]

Why should that annoy anyone? It's no one's business.

Really, why should that annoy anyone? And how do you know by looking at a person with a smart phone that they are poor?

I haven't thought about this in a few years, because I'd rather not, but I was sitting in my, yes, car, in a park, contemplating killing myself, when I got a call on my, yes, cell phone, telling me that there was a bed in the housing program (read "homeless shelter" available for me after all--normally a 3-month waiting list. And I'm college educated and had a full-time job at the time.

I have an acquaintance who has two graduate degrees and is a veteran (thanks for much for your service to our country) who lived in her car for a lot longer than I did.

If you (and I mean a generic you, not any poster in particular) haven't had any experience with what life can throw at you, good for you,hope you never do. But don't be so damn smug and judgmental.Life (or Hurricane Sandy, or a wild fire, or illness, or any old crap) could be just around the corner. God forbid somebody see you eating a pack of Cheetohs when the worst happens.

[TMS]

I want my taxes to actually help people who need help. It is my business. I don't work my ass off to provide an ass for some lazy bumkin to sit on.

Why should that annoy anyone? It's no one's business.

[JesusFightClub]

Soz, it's not.

I have been broke, homeless, on housing benefit and on the dole. On the other side, I've worked for the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) dispensing the benefits I used to be on, and in my present job I see more poverty stats and deal with more poor people than you could shake a stick at. The thing about poverty is that it is complex.

It's not about whether you "deserve" to have things. A poor person could have a smartphone after saving part of their benefits, they could have one because it was a present, they could have one because someone gave them one so they could stay in contact (for reasons savoury or unsavoury) they could have one, in short, for any of the myriad reasons that well-off people have them. You do not know and you cannot judge. (I will say, for the record, that the benefits system here does not make you suddenly awash with money if you give up your job and sign on. Try it and see.)

There's a very old-fashioned idea behind this, which is that there exists two categories of poor.

The deserving poor, who should be in rags and tatters, approach the "hard-working" middle class cap in hand, and say respectfully "'scuse me, Ma'am, but I've heard that there's a zero-hours contract job going in your call centre. I'd be very grateful if you could consider me for the role. I don't drink or smoke or take drugs, and never allow myself any enjoyment. Please....if you don't mind me addressing you..."

The undeserving poor, who think they have the right (the right! can you imagine them thinking they have rights!) to have a pint with their mates down the pub or watch TV or have a haircut or make a phone call when they need to. These people are evil bloodsuckers, who should be forced to exist on stamps for the most basic categories of food possible, lose all their benefits if they are seen having a drink, have their children removed for the slightest mistake (and being wicked enough to be poor is a BIG mistake) - yet at the same time they should be motivated enough, connected enough and able enough to take any job which comes their way.

The rich and the middle class don't hold themselves to standards as strict as that. Why should the poor, with far less capital and far more burdens, be supposed to be superhuman self-deniers?

When I was really, really poor and working, I was on a zero hours contract. That means, in effect, you're summoned when they need you. I was not put on shift for a week because we were temporarily overstaffed and I'd been on double shift for two weeks. That means I worked until 3am, went home, slept for 4 hours, and was back into work at 9am for a 9-5 shift. The day after that I was doing til 3am then up at 9am again.

Being on-shift I had saved a bit of money, which was enough to satisfy my landlord for three weeks and pay my food and electricity bills, giving me about a tenner left over. I admit, dear reader, I spent the tenner on riotous living. I bought:

Dented cans of Tennents lager on special offer

Sweets which were on sale

And with the fiver left over I got a takeaway as a special treat. So sue me.

Poverty is horrible, and the poor snatch at things which can give them a moment's relaxation from drudgery. It's doubly unfair if they're blamed for that by people who should really know better.

[RosyDaisy]

I just sent the link I posted up-thread to my uncle. Both he and my grandmother qualify and will be getting one soon. As it turns out, it's a lot cheaper than having a land line. I would love to take a land line phone and stick up the ass Seth Arndt right now (figure of speech).

[bal maiden]

OMG JesusFightClub, you were poor and you bought booze?! I'm reporting you to the Daily Fail right now.

[Patsy]

Soz, it's not.

I have been broke, homeless, on housing benefit and on the dole. On the other side, I've worked for the DWP (Department of Work and Pensions) dispensing the benefits I used to be on, and in my present job I see more poverty stats and deal with more poor people than you could shake a stick at. The thing about poverty is that it is complex.

It's not about whether you "deserve" to have things. A poor person could have a smartphone after saving part of their benefits, they could have one because it was a present, they could have one because someone gave them one so they could stay in contact (for reasons savoury or unsavoury) they could have one, in short, for any of the myriad reasons that well-off people have them. You do not know and you cannot judge. (I will say, for the record, that the benefits system here does not make you suddenly awash with money if you give up your job and sign on. Try it and see.)

There's a very old-fashioned idea behind this, which is that there exists two categories of poor.

The deserving poor, who should be in rags and tatters, approach the "hard-working" middle class cap in hand, and say respectfully "'scuse me, Ma'am, but I've heard that there's a zero-hours contract job going in your call centre. I'd be very grateful if you could consider me for the role. I don't drink or smoke or take drugs, and never allow myself any enjoyment. Please....if you don't mind me addressing you..."

The undeserving poor, who think they have the right (the right! can you imagine them thinking they have rights!) to have a pint with their mates down the pub or watch TV or have a haircut or make a phone call when they need to. These people are evil bloodsuckers, who should be forced to exist on stamps for the most basic categories of food possible, lose all their benefits if they are seen having a drink, have their children removed for the slightest mistake (and being wicked enough to be poor is a BIG mistake) - yet at the same time they should be motivated enough, connected enough and able enough to take any job which comes their way.

The rich and the middle class don't hold themselves to standards as strict as that. Why should the poor, with far less capital and far more burdens, be supposed to be superhuman self-deniers?

When I was really, really poor and working, I was on a zero hours contract. That means, in effect, you're summoned when they need you. I was not put on shift for a week because we were temporarily overstaffed and I'd been on double shift for two weeks. That means I worked until 3am, went home, slept for 4 hours, and was back into work at 9am for a 9-5 shift. The day after that I was doing til 3am then up at 9am again.

Being on-shift I had saved a bit of money, which was enough to satisfy my landlord for three weeks and pay my food and electricity bills, giving me about a tenner left over. I admit, dear reader, I spent the tenner on riotous living. I bought:

Dented cans of Tennents lager on special offer

Sweets which were on sale

And with the fiver left over I got a takeaway as a special treat. So sue me.

Poverty is horrible, and the poor snatch at things which can give them a moment's relaxation from drudgery. It's doubly unfair if they're blamed for that by people who should really know better.

Post of the week, I say. Especially the bolded.

[nokidsmom]

Post of the week, I say. Especially the bolded.

I agree. Great post, JFC.

[J'ean Skirt]

I want my taxes to actually help people who need help. It is my business. I don't work my ass off to provide an ass for some lazy bumkin to sit on.

Quotes got messed up somewhere, so I'm not sure who said this, but it is a sentiment that really pisses me off.

I pay more in taxes than the median US income. I have done for the last 8 years or so.

Do I work hard for it? Well, yeah, probably, I guess. Do I work harder than the woman working 2 jobs to feed her kids? No way. Do I work harder than the man waiting in front of Home Depot for some day work? Nope. Do I work harder than the guy who does our gardening? No. Do I work harder than the woman who comes in and cleans for us twice a month? I don't actually think so.

I do sit on my ass all day. I just make a lot of money doing it.

Most of the people who get assistance work. And the majority who aren't working are either elderly or kids. (And we won't even mention that there are currently 3 people looking for work for every available job. The jobs Just Aren't There.)

If it's anyone's business it's my business. And, really, it's not my business. I pay taxes gladly (well, OK, those checks are pretty damn painful to write) because it means many people get the help they need.

How we treat poor people in this country is *shameful* and the fact that so many people think they deserve to treat the poor that way "because it's my tax dollars" says an awful lot more about the speaker than the country. You don't deserve to know who is getting subsidies. It's not your business.

[FreeJosie]

Ah, so poor = lazy now. Of course. I should have seen that argument coming.

[ems]

Same goes for the tattoos mentioned in a post above. Also, if a person is friends with an apprentice tattoo artist, they might be getting that ink for free in exchange for being the artist's practice canvas, so to speak.

This. I've noticed a lot of "tattoo prejudice" surrounding poor people (not referring to FJ in particular). I think I mentioned on another thread that a close friend of mine has had some mental health problems and is on food stamps. She has a few tattoos because her cousin is a tattoo artist, and I bought her a small one for under $50 bucks for her birthday.

I get frustrated at the begrudging attitude towards the possessions poor people have. It's not like selling these items would put a dent in their poverty (only having a steady source of income would), and why can't the poor have a few items that give them pleasure?

[ems]

The rich and the middle class don't hold themselves to standards as strict as that. Why should the poor, with far less capital and far more burdens, be supposed to be superhuman self-deniers?

Poverty is horrible, and the poor snatch at things which can give them a moment's relaxation from drudgery. It's doubly unfair if they're blamed for that by people who should really know better.

QFT.

[samithemage]

Fuck this guy! I work hard, but was recently let go from a job because the were hoping that one person could cover it instead of two, and at the very least, if one couldn't end up covering, then they could hire someone less qualified, whom they could pay much less, to do the job I'd been hired for. Now the fiancé and I are faced with the very real possibility of breing on the street if I don't get a job of some sort by the end of he month. The thing is I have a lot of various and useful skills, but there just aren't a lot of people hiring

[wild little fox]

Well, how privileged of you! You have access to the internet and a reliable computer to use it. You also have the sort of job where your employer will contact you via email.

Now, step off your privileged step and join the poors for a moment: Internet is expensive. Computers are expensive. Fixing a computer and keeping it up to date is expensive. And McDonalds and other low end employers won't contact you via email. In fact, most shift work these days is "on demand". In other words, they schedule workers exactly as they need them, when they need them, so your employer expects you to be available at a moment's notice. If you fail to show for a last minute shift, you'll get less hours next week in favor of the employee who did show.

So tell me, how could you possibly keep up with that without a cell phone? How could you ever leave the house, even to run and get a gallon of milk, if you knew that your employer might call at any minute, and if you weren't there to pick up the phone, your hours will be cut?

I don't know about nowadays, but when I worked minimum wage food service jobs they did not make ANYONE full time. Every extra hour I could work, I did. It's hard not to go in to get hours if you cannot be reached.