On 8/6/2013 2:41 AM, scott wrote:

> 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.
>
Well, I don't doubt this is true, and this is maybe a poor example of 
the effect. But, the real point is, the reason there is a market for 
"throw away" phones at all, outside of say.. drug dealers, is that some 
people can't afford $50 a month for to use *all* of the phones features. 
But, if you go to certain other countries, many of them ironically "less 
developed", you pay one flat fee, and a much smaller one, instead of 
tacking on everything separately. Its symptomatic of the, "Even though 
it costs *us* the same to send you voice between two places as it does 
to download an app, we are going to charge you extra, for the second 
one, even if you use it less than one time a month." And, you see this 
logic with just about everything, except, maybe, the internet.

>> 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.
>

Let me try to put the US situation in starker contrast, since we are 
talking about "levels of poverty". From a purely practical stand point, 
without government assistance, and working a normal 40 hour week, within 
a year, if this condition where somehow "imposed" on the poor in the US 
(and there are people that want to cut back, or even eliminate the 
programs that help them), we would probably have stacks of bodies in the 
streets, no one would have a TV in those neighborhoods, never mind 
anything else, since all of their money would be going to rent, and 
*maybe* food, when they could afford it, and I wouldn't be surprised if 
we saw a sudden industry of "clothes made from the rich people's news 
papers" pop up, to replace the clothes they couldn't buy with the money 
they didn't make.

Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b) 
they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at 
anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart, 
k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all 
the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week", 
jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.

So.. I suppose, if you want to define "not poverty" as, "working like 
slave labor", and, "At least the government doesn't make you stand in 
bread lines.", then.. sure.. we can claim its not that "bad" in the US. 
But, if you think that is an insane way to live, and it sounds like most 
of the country is one idiot legislative bill from becoming a Somalian 
refugee, we might be finally be on the same page.

The people in charge, right now, are the inmates of the asylum over here.

Post a reply to this message