Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Apr 2014 19:55 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

I'm using the URL slug headline for this one (check the link).

This map showing the locations of 280 million individual posts on Twitter shows a depressing divide in America: Tweets coming from Manhattan tend to come from iPhones. Tweets coming from Newark, N.J., tend to come from Android phones.

If you live in the New York metro area, you don't need to be told that Manhattan is where the region's rich people live, and the poor live in Newark. Manhattan's median income is $67,000 a year. Newark's is $17,000, according to U.S. Census data.

This fascinates me, as it seems to be a very American thing. In The Netherlands, Android has an 80% market share, and we have far lower poverty rates than the US (that Newark median income is crazy low by Dutch standards). I'm pretty sure the situation is similar for many other West-European nations.

This raises an interesting question: is it 'Android is for poor people' - or is it 'Android is for poor people in America'?

Thread beginning with comment 586652
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
looncraz
Member since:
2005-07-24

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.

Thankfully, I know a few CPS agents...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.


Sometimes, but it's still a broad over generalization. There's just so much prejudice against the poor, to the point of pretending they're all just lazy worthless bums. The thing is there's a tendency to rope them all together as though they all deserve to be in that boat. This overlooks the real hardships of the situation, and that very few of us could realistically hope to escape from if we were the ones in poverty.

15% of the US population is officially in poverty, which is bad, however looking at the official income levels used to measure poverty in the US, this seems to be under represented for political purposes.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

Single: $11,670
Couple: $15,730
Family of 3: $19,790
Family of 4: $23,850


There's just no realistic way *anyone* can afford to pay for modern housing/food/childcare/medical/clothing/savings/etc bills at those levels (ie pick one). Even doubling those incomes won't dramatically increase true self sufficiency, because expenses are just getting out of hand even at the median level.

It is a real problem that's gotten worse in recent generations even as GDP has grown (owning to the fact that most/all of the gains have been distributed to the wealthy). I don't think it does justice to brush this off as solely a consequence of bad personal financing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Sometimes, but it's still a broad over generalization. There's just so much prejudice against the poor, to the point of pretending they're all just lazy worthless bums. The thing is there's a tendency to rope them all together as though they all deserve to be in that boat. This overlooks the real hardships of the situation, and that very few of us could realistically hope to escape from if we were the ones in poverty.


Well, if we say that stereotyping is bad, we will overlook the rampant stereotyping by liberals of rich people as seal-clubbing bastards and focus on the issue at hand. Although I know for sure that some poor people are lazy worthless bums (just as some rich people really ARE seal-clubbing bastards), I do not feel this way about the majority of them. For most of them, they made a lot of stupid decisions when they were younger, and then are like 'oh crap' when they hit their 30's. By then, their financial situation is in dire straits, they probably have 2 or 3 kids, and I doubt their health is all that great either, due to poor lifestyle choices. I'm sure that for many, they would go back and do it all again if they could.

And sure, we can give them more. But having already accumulated a lifetime of poor decision making skills, it isn't likely that they're going to do anything constructive with it, like continuing their education or putting it into savings. As it is, these people are always only going to have barely enough to survive, because they will likely squander the rest. (I once knew a lady that won $100,000+ in a lottery. In less than 3 years, it was all gone.) You ever see people that stand in line for 36 hours to save $300 on a big screen TV? What do you suppose their financial situation is like? These are the exact people that SHOULDN'T be buying big-screen TVs.

So no, I don't necessarily object to giving them a little more, but the people who are striking for $15 an hour for working fast food are smoking crack ;)

Edited 2014-04-09 00:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I'd wager most who had kids had them while they were unable to afford them.

That has been my experience with humans. I see children going without while their parents collect welfare then go out and buy the latest iMustHave.

Thankfully, I know a few CPS agents...


Cool story bro...

Reply Parent Score: 2