Comments for Robert Samuelson's Cellphone Standard of Living at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 15 out of 15 comments http://www.cepr.net Sun, 19 May 2013 15:27:54 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-985 2. Back in the late 50’s i was riding to school with a “Sturmy Archer” 3speed and dymano powering the front & rear lights. the top of the dynamo rubbed on the rear wheel side wall so as to rotate as it was powering the lights. Bulbs used to pop from time to time causing you to carry spares in the large leather saddlebag attached by straps to the leather saddle. My current Carbon Selle Marco Saddle is a lot more comfortable, today was 7hrs on the run and occasionally drafting at 45kph with a variety of groups out to enjoy the sunny saturday after a week of snow down to 800m(heavy rain at lower altitudes)here in Tyrol! Thanks [url=http://www.cdmacellulars.com/]Cell phone reviews [/url] - Jehnavi Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:40:09 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-753 The one and only time I ever watched Rush Limbaugh, about 10 years ago, he was talking about how there's no poverty in the US. His evidence? TVs per capita. Stupid then, stupid now. What qualifies as poverty has to be relative to the time and place in which one lives. People lived in cities in the US without indoor plumbing 100 years ago. Not only does everyone have to have it now, they also have to pay for it. - Denise Mon, 31 May 2010 20:37:01 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-750 ....the degree to which you missed the point of the last paragraph is astounding. It had nothing to do with the relative merits of Medicaid and everything to do with AEI's distorted calculations of spending on the poor. Of course Medicaid benefits the poor, but to add medicaid spending into the calculations and making it appear as if that spending is a direct cash benefit is dishonest. - Henk Mon, 31 May 2010 16:05:02 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-749 I just returned from a vacation in Panama,where I overheard an ex-pat Teabagger pushing this exact same 'analysis' of US poverty criteria: "they're obese, how can they'afford that?/they have cellphones/they have fancy hubcaps on their BMWS..." To him, living in a hut "with a dirt floor" indicates poverty. The BMWs? It seems he conflated the "they" in poverty with the "they" drug-dealer stereotype, but "they" all look the same, don't they? Oh, and btw, "Obama is programmed to fail," says the Teabagger. - nancycadet Mon, 31 May 2010 14:50:36 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-748 Many other countries have health care equivalent to or better than that in the US for less than half the cost, because they are "socialized". Medicare and Medicaid are subject to some of the same inflated costs (though not all, since they are partially "socialized"), so it is reasonable to say that a significant part of the expenditure is not getting to the targets as well as it might in a more "socialized" system. - skeptonomist Mon, 31 May 2010 09:41:21 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-747 To say that the poor don't benefit from medicaid because because many of the expenditures don't directly benefit the patient? Why have medicaid at all if that's the case. Of course medicaid is a direct benefit. One that should be expanded, I believe. To say that it is not a benefit because there may be unneeded expensive tests without actually referencing how often this occurs, relative to the total cost of medicaid, is an empty statement. - mikedddd Mon, 31 May 2010 08:21:11 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-746 Why would I pay for a newspaper to read garbage. Add another reason the journalism is suffering to charge us their product. She isn’t poor but a cellphone luxury is useful when football practice is over and the midwest winters puts her child in the dark. My nephew, 12, has a cellphone because I have an extra line with 750 minute that I don’t use at no extra cost to me. This allows my sister to spend money on other family expenses and instant access to her child when not at home. - Tyrone Mon, 31 May 2010 07:30:13 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-745 Does Samuelson confuse high technology with high quality? A microwave is efficient, and scientifically interesting. But it's no substitute for an oven. And someone may "have" an old air-conditioning unit on the property, but not be able to maintain it or use it. So cell phones, microwaves and air conditioning apparatus are poor indices of well-being. - Rachel Mon, 31 May 2010 06:13:47 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-744 Samuelson has been making arguments like this for more years than I care to count. I remember in the 1990s he argued that people couldn't afford to buy houses because they were spending all their money on electronic toys. He left out the little part about a 20% down payment being, at that time, about $50K. The cost of all my electronic toys isn't 10% of my rent. - PeonInChief Mon, 31 May 2010 06:13:34 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-743 Can we all agree that one needs a phone to get by? Try sending out resumes without a phone number. Every company will give you a cell phone for free when you sign up (it may even have a camera and play MP3's). Monthly fees can be as low as $1.00 a day. Are we really arguing that the poor in US are perfectly fine (if not wasteful!) because they spend $1.00 a day on something that is basically a necessity like a phone in modern America? Maybe the poor will deign to wear shoes next! Everyone out there, go quit your job, then smash your phone, land line and cell phone. Then go try to find a new job. And if you only had to get just one of the two phone options, you might, like many, decide that the one where the phone is free, small, and portable, and you get free long distance and costs only $1 a day, might be the wiser more practical option! - Nylund Mon, 31 May 2010 05:45:45 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-742 A lot of unemployed and underemployed people who are poor by anybody's definition need a phone number where users of casual labour can reach them. So in order to clamber out of poverty they need a phone. But the landline phone companies frequently require a huge deposit before issuing a number to a subscriber who has past credit problems. This leaves a lot of poor people with pay-as-you-go cellphones as the only way they can stay employable. Samuelson has no understanding of how poor people actually live. And a $50 microwave is the 21st century equivalent of the hot-plate poor folks formerly used to cook on as their only appliance. - Murray Stone Mon, 31 May 2010 05:42:16 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-741 The cell phone phenomena is pretty interesting. I know plenty of people in the Philippines without potable water who have cell phones, and I'm sure it's true throughout developing Asia and Latin America. Many of those areas may never get landlines, either. - purple Mon, 31 May 2010 05:08:53 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-740 One would think that items like access to education, access to health care, housing, and affordability of nutritious food (not to mention infant mortality, disease rate, average lifespan) would indicate standard of living. But heck, maybe it's a cell phone, what do I know? I mean, you can die because you can't get access to adequate health care, but at least you can chat about it on the phone while you do. I love comments that have the word "liberal" in them because it indicates the writer hasn't a clue as to what the real problems are, but just like to feel as though they are better than someone else. And, you know, that IS exactly the problem. - econosaurus Mon, 31 May 2010 04:39:16 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-739 We may not have a house. We may not have a job. We may not have savings. We may not have health care. We may not have clean oceans. But thank the God of Creative Destructive Capitalism that we do have cell phones to console each other and escape the raging socialism that's bringing us down. Stupid liberals. - izzatzo Mon, 31 May 2010 04:11:52 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelsons-cellphone-standard-of-living/#comment-738 The failure of the U.S. system since about 1970 with respect to the poor has been in private enterprise. Up till then there had been a fairly continuous growth of real income during the 20th century and had this course continued the poor would not exist as a major group in the U.S. Conservatives would claim that this is a result of socialism; but their remedy of cutting taxes and other favorable treatment of the rich has been tried for 30 years and has obviously not worked. - skeptonomist Mon, 31 May 2010 04:01:52 +0100