> Seriously, I don't think you are getting my point. If most of the
> population can't afford to buy "better", then there is no incentive to
> anyone to sell "better",

Maybe it's different where you are from, but in the UK at least there is 
certainly a huge market for "better" things, which a large majority can 
actually afford. If that weren't the case then Apple wouldn't sell 
anything, nor would the German car makers, nor would satellite TV 
companies be able to sell premium channels, petrol stations wouldn't be 
able to sell the "premium" fuel, "premium" food shops wouldn't exist, 
toll roads wouldn't get any customers, people would all go to cheap pubs 
instead of restaurants, designer clothes and shoes wouldn't sell, etc 
etc. These are all things that normal people on average salaries can 
afford if they want to.

> go. There is a reason that, in the US, you have to pay for every single
> "service" on a cell phone, to the order of $50 a month, when most of
> that stuff is free in the places they *actually* manufacture, test, and
> perfect the latest model of the phones, and its not because it somehow
> "costs more" to run a US cell network, than on in Taiwan, or someplace
> like that. Its because they know that they can squeeze every dime they
> can out of you, and either you pay for the phone, or a get a cheap assed
> one, which isn't as good, and pay for it upfront besides, and even if
> people know they getting screwed, there isn't any "alternative" source
> to go to, to get anything better.

I don't get your point here, it sounds pretty similar to the UK, you 

type of phone you want, how much data, how many minutes etc. Judging 
from the number of people I see with iPhones and Samsung Galaxies it's 
not like nobody can afford the expensive "best" options, if they want 
to. Plenty of people don't want/need the best, so take a cheaper option.

The industry is highly competitive (at least in UK), customers are free 
to keep their numbers and switch providers whenever their contract 
expires. Most contracts don't distinguish between calls/texts to one 
provider or another, and coverage is pretty much equal across all 
networks. There is no way one company would be able to charge 
significantly more than the others, they would simply lose customers. 
Net profit at Vodafone UK was 1.5% last year, not exactly excessive.

> And, you think we fix this by taking a budget of roughly $1300 a month,
> where like all but a few bucks of that goes to insurance, rent, food,
> heating, etc., to buy a $20 item, from a slightly less insane company,
> instead of a $10 one, from Walmart... Yeah, that has worked "so well",
> so far, given the huge amount of extra, left over, income everyone has,
> at the end of every month...

I think you're making exactly the same point as me, the fact is people 
would rather have a bit bigger house, a bit nicer food, a bit bigger TV, 
a bit better phone etc rather than paying a bit extra to get something 

Walmart option, if it means they've got another $10 to allow them to get 
the latest iPhone or more TV channels or whatever.

Post a reply to this message