Given that the thread is about how $50T has been appropriated from the poor it seems odd to say that the poor should use $250 phones, and they have no business owning anything which costs more.
But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition. So either a category of people exists that do not need/cannot afford $1500 phones, or $1500 phones are a basic necessity that every human needs alongside food and shelter.
I would argue that yes, in the first world a smartphone is almost required, but there are plenty of great <$200 Android phones that do everything one would deem essential. $1500 smartphones are now simply a status symbol alongside Nike's and Rolex's, and have been for some time.
I have an iPhone because it is (for my needs) a better machine. I wear Nike running shoes because they fit me well and that gets me a safer workout.
Some things have functional advantages even if they also signal status. The working class has at least as much need for functionality as anyone else. A $400 phone vs a $200 one could easily be more useful to a poorer person than a richer one. Same with $100 vs $25 shoes.
My Seiko tells time as well as a Rolex (though not as well as an even cheaper quartz watch would). But even here, where status is definitely a factor, it’s not like the Rolex has no additional value: it has resale value, and aesthetic value.
> But not everybody can be in the top 1% by definition.
Sure - but what should the wealth ratio between the top 1% and everyone else be? Perhaps if the ratio were lower, everyone would be able to afford great phones.
