While your point that you don't need an iPhone has merit, one can't simply relegate themselves to text messages on a flip phone.
Far too much of the modern world including our societal systems require a smartphone. Wether its a QR code showing COVID vax status, checking email, engaging with your local bank via the app, connecting with friends, etc.
We have built a world that is so reliant on the apps ecosystem (at least in the US) so it's unhelpful to say "flip phone can get text messages".
I think it's fair to say that you essentially need text messages (in the US). However, I question if you need a smartphone beyond that--although a working individual may. I don't need to do any of the things you list with a smartphone although e.g. COVID vax status may in some places. (Just a piece of paper has been sufficient whenever I've needed to.)
I don't really disagree that we're moving to a place where a smartphone is universally needed because of apps but I'm not sure we're universally there today.
I think “need” might be too absolutist of a term. But yeah, not having a device connected to the internet (which is what we’re talking about here, not a supplemental device to your MacBook or whatever) makes life a lot harder.
So no, it’s not food and water level necessary but it’s pretty damn important.
Need a smartphone? Maybe not. Need an internet connection? Probably.
A smartphone just happens to be the easiest way to get phone/SMS & internet. As noted elsewhere, a massive number of Americans (and people worldwide) use their phone as their only means of internet access.
> Just a piece of paper has been sufficient whenever I've needed to
OK so you need a printer, ink, probably a PC… (Or at least access to one, which would be a fine requirement, if the US had good public transport and libraries...)
I don't think I buy that argument very much, though. You can do all of those things in the same way you would have done them before the advent of smartphones - snail mail (or use a library/personal computer to check emails), visit a bank in branch, send text messages to friends on a flip phone. Heck, even most vaccination systems I've seen worldwide have the option of a printed QR code proof.
I won't disagree that these things are massively inconvenient compared to doing it all though a smartphone, but it's far from impossible.
My kids' high school required a smart phone. They wanted kids using the calendars to track assignments and projects, they used the camera to capture homework instructions from a whiteboard, they were assigned projects that required video shot on their phone, they communicated via something that resembled a private version of Twitter, etc...
I suppose it didn't need to be an activated phone though. You could probably get buy with cheap android phone you buy at CVS and use the school's wifi.
Homeless people have more need of a decent smartphone than I do. I use this site on multiple devices all day, but someone homeless will have — if they’re lucky — only the phone. There’s no substitute for it.
And for what? Understanding and accessing government services, particularly for those trying to escape homelessness. Most of this is done online. The only other realistic option is a public library, but the hours are limited, and they’re geographically inaccessible to lots of folks.
In Brazil, the offline route to apply for the conditional cash transfer program was removed and the only way now is to use a smartphone. This is a program designed for the poorest people that the current government decided to restrict this way.
It's 2-3 days' labor at California's minimum wage (allowing for 'take home' pay being reduced by taxes, etc). That still might be a significant cost to many, but it's not unaffordable and is a pretty good value proposition given the utility and entertainment one gets from a mobile device.
If you already labour every day and can just about afford bills, rent, and food (which is the case for a lot of people) then 2-3 days labour is completely unaffordable. They’re just getting by and can’t do anymore.
While you're not wrong about the complaint for the price and the age of the device.
The iPhone 6s is still receiving update, though it may not be long for this world, the iPhone 7 and 8 are still one and two years newer than said 6s - as such would likely receive updates a year and two years additional. That would put the iPhone 8 End-of-Life at 2024. That's 2 years out, and the 6s hasn't even finished receiving updates, so closer to 3 years out.
I don't think it's about "is $<x> a lot of money":
> According to 2020 numbers from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, those in the lowest 20 percent of income earners spent $150 more a year on their cell phones than they did in 2016.
I spend $180/y for unlimited talk/text with 5 GB data per month using Verizon's network through US Mobile. It's a prepaid monthly plan, no credit, no contract. You also have the option to use T-Mobile's GSM network if your existing phone is incompatible or coverage is better in your area. For phones there are plenty of options in the $200 range, both used like GP mentions and new. On the new side I recently picked up 2 Galaxy A12 for the niece/nephew, $170 each. They started on Android 10 but have gotten 11 and are due to get 12 year (and a few patches after that but not likely 13).
So for <$240 a year folks should be able to be connected to decent new phones and service yet in the last 4 years people in the lowest 20% income bracket have been led to spend 2/3 of that more in addition to what they were already paying. I'm not sure where the exact numbers are in the linked source but I'd be curious if these folks are being led to spend more than I am on my high end phone and phone plan.
For that price these folks are getting a lot of value and I don't think that's a problem in itself more than fulfilling any other modern life need is a problem for low income folks. I think the real problem is a combination of predatory tactics from the market as described in the article and lack of knowledge of alternatives amongst low income people. It's hard to learn where you can get a quality phone and plan when you don't have internet and the local T-Mobile store's $0 up front plan is the only way you will have a phone for work next week.
I’m on a iPhone 7 with a cracked screen. You could probably get that on eBay for less than 70$. And everything still works. Just gotta be a bit mindful when swiping And don’t use the dang thing too much
It's also the ongoing cost of the voice and data plans, replacement cost of the phone if/when it breaks, replacement cost of the phone when the $3 Trillion dollar tech company forces it to be obsolete, replacement cost for the battery they don't let you service.
I got fed up with replacing my phone, so I've started getting those rugged phones marketed at construction workers. They're pretty amazing. I've submerged mine in water, dropped it in all sorts of surfaces (including concrete, gravel), gotten snow on it, gotten mud on it. The screen is immaculate. I've owned it for a few years and it still has something like 40h+ battery life. Best phone I've ever bought.
Which phone if you don't mind? I've spent the effort to replace screens & batteries when they go bad or are broken, but frankly when the replacement screen is 50% of the original phone price it just doesn't seem worth it... Although I still want to from an e-waste perspective
Some downsides is that it's pretty heavy and comes with bundle-ware from John Deere (easy enough to uninstall). It's not a fast or pretty phone by any standard, but my phone use is very basic so for me it matters more that it lasts than bells and whistles.
The same can be said for commuting, and for wearing presentable clothes to go to work. Nothing new under the sun. The difference is that smartphones actually have other uses besides work.
> Today, more than a quarter of low-income Americans depend solely on their phones for internet access. Amid historic levels of income inequality, phones and data plans have become an increasingly costly burden on those who have the least to spare.
One thing I noticed about America after moving there was that they don't allow you to tether to your phone's internet from your computer. Phone data is only allowed to be used from your phone -- you have to pay for a separate internet connection if you want to check email on your computer. I found this to be pretty disgusting.
Wow, is that still the case? I've been on one of the smaller resellers for years, and can tether just fine (and my phone bill is cheaper, too). I assumed the tether restrictions were long over, but maybe the big carriers are still being predatory and charging more to allow tethering?
This must vary by location or plan. I'm in the US and I've been tethering to various Verizon and AT&T iPhones for as long as I can recall, and I don't remember ever having to pay extra for tethering support.
It varied by plan. The newest unlimited plans have it included at all levels, until recently the shared family plans (I think) had it as an add-on. I don’t remember the details, only that my son was on a different et plan than my wife for a while (but within 2-3 years) because he needed tethering for work (we’re all on same account).
I haven’t been charged for it for at least 4 years on Verizon, but it might be done through iPhone software or something because my old Android phone from many years ago prompted me to pay when I tried to tether.
In fact, between my spouse, my dad and I, we have 4 lines with Mint Mobile, and they do not prevent us from tethering or using our data as hotspots.
The 3 smartphone only plans are $15/month, unlimited talk/text, 4GB data.
the 4th plan is $20/month, 10GB data, and sits in an LTE hotspot, handling his modest home internet needs.
Where he lives (very rural), he'd have to pay thousands to get cable internet (or worse, DSL) run to his house, so this is a great alternative. But just a few years ago, this kind of thing was harder to find, harder to set up, more expensive, slower, with lower data caps. Competition helps, but the situation isn't perfect.
Sidenote: I’d love if phones (and other metered connections) could communicate bandwidth budgets to laptops through DHCP option 43 or something. Metered connections have been a thing (for better or worse) for awhile now, but laptops have only coarse-grained means of dealing with them, and require the user to indicate that it’s metered.
Other countries are cheaper, but the US isnt that bad. I pay about $40/month for unlimited voice/text/data, including nice bonuses like free roaming in Canada and Mexico.
I really don't agree with the Title. If you absolutely "need" a phone. You could get a simpler, cheaper one. That is not the problem.
But, Smartphones are "Tax on the Poor" in a totally different way, it's a Cognitive tax. There are people in my country (India) who are already in poverty and would have to work a lot more than the elites to break away from poverty gap. But all these apps, that monger on attention are taking any hope of them getting out of poverty and making them stay in there. It's almost impossible to break people away from the phones, Most of their waking hours is spent on the Screen.
As someone who comes from a family of farmers and having a lot of my childhood friends and relatives stuck in poverty. The negative effects are alarmingly high. I hope there comes some regulation on these apps.
I parked at an airport parking lot that would only let you pay through an app. If a smartphone is necessary for daily life, it's a unfair burden on those who either can't or don't wish to pay that expense.
I could, but I wouldn't. It used to be you could feed real currency into a machine to pay for parking. Requiring a specific device for payment is putting undue burden on the consumer.
I can pay cash for a car quite easily. That may be harder for a plane ticket, but not out of the question. My point is there isn't even an option in the parking lot.
Even if you take the smartphone out of the equation, there are a ton of things you can only pay for with a credit/debit card. And we all know that will only become more widespread.
I think they have not updated the information. The kiosks to pay with card have been removed (at least at the lot I was at). Believe me, I would've used it if available.
That’s disturbing, even given that it’s a private lot. I have a smartphone, but I strongly resist installing apps, and would really not want to install this. And what if the app doesn’t work with your particular phone/Android version? I would support a law that required all merchants to accept cash for purchases under, say $1,000—I also despise those stores that only accept payment cards and refuse cash.
> You could get a simpler, cheaper one. That is not the problem.
Why one person can buy a stupid phone while other people need the government to protect them from doing the same even though stupid phones are cheaper?
Cognitive tax sure, but in the end it's up to you whether you are going to browse all day.
The big one is that your boss can easily throw around your zero-hours "contract" when everyone has a leash. Before mobile phones that wasn't quite so easy. If you were out with your family you couldn't get called and threatened into taking another shift.
This is an interesting comparison. Phones with "freedom of choice".
I think freedom of choice, Varies drastically Based on the layer where one exists in society.
For example, Instagram pushing/peer-pressuring people to travel/buy/share more feels fine to me when it is an average household with with some level of stability. This is not true everywhere.
I'm talking about families whose total monthly earning is about 150 dollars. Families where the easier choice was to not go to the hospital for leukemia and let them be, than go to a hospital. Where a second Girl child is as close to a bad news as it gets. And yet and yet almost everybody with a smartphone within these community, scrolls through infinite feeds of tik-tok like content, for hours on end.
The way I see it, these social media are very similar to alcohol/other drugs. An infinite cage, from which There is little to no escape. Facebook is as close to a quicksand as it gets. Progressively pulling people in and keeping them where they are, not letting them go where they could be.
I see articles like this now and then, to me it seems a USA problem that regulators don't want to fix.
In Italy I spend 5€/month for a WindTre 4G connection, 40GB month data cap and no phone call cap, no SMS, literally nobody use them anymore. Other operators offers more expensive plans, but with a much higher data cap (now Iliad has a plan with 150GB/month data cap, no phone call and sms cap for 10€/month).
Most data I use is for streaming, which I suppose is not required to work.
Last year I bought a decent 14" Acer notebook for 600€ (Ryzen 5, 500GB SSD, 8GB RAM).
Countries like Romania has even cheaper plans. Why is this still an issue for world richiest country?
It’s not, we have cheap phone and data plans as well. The article is using the dishonest data point that, yes, it’s expensive to get a plan with unlimited data and a new phone and ever available feature. That laptop price is on par with what I would expect to pay, not sure where you’re going with that.
I was trying to tell that 2021 connectivity tools are not really expensive, at least not for the great majority of the people, not even in Italy where we are far less rich than USA.
Everything needs to be an outrage, if you want to do things maturely you can find a $10 a month phone plan. You can then find a nice phone, like a really nice phone for games and all that good stuff for about $100 new.
Even though I make very good money, I'm very strict about how much I spend on my phones. I use mint sim and for two lines I pay about $40 a month, I have 10 gigs per line.
I only buy my phone's cash, and while recently I have treated myself to a new pixel 6, I was doing just fine with a $300 phone. And that's closer to the high end, but I've definitely seen people walk to T-Mobile and buy three or four iPhones, then get into really nasty loud arguments when they can't make their $300 a month bill.
As a side note, I absolutely hate how everything needs to be a social justice issue. Saying that companies like DoorDash expect you to have a working cell phone, and this is extremely oppressive doesn't do anyone any favors.
But then we run into Wired's incentives. They need clicks, writing nonsense gets them that.
Nonsense. A better title is "An expensive phone for a poor person is a tax on stupidity"
I bought a used iPhone 7 literally two days ago for $65. Prior to this I've been using iPhone SE that I purchased for about $100 over 3 years ago. Works great.
There is absolutely no reason you have to spend a lot of money on a phone.
You're ignoring monthly access fees. T-Mobiles least expensive plan for a single phone is $60/month.
You can get a cell/SMS plan (no data) for less, but then you're relying on public wifi for internet access (and none at home, unless you buy a wired connection).
It probably depends on the block of data you're paying for. At least where I'm located, I can pay $25/mo for unlimited voice/text and 5.5GB data. For 10GB it's $40/mo and for "unlimited" it's $50.
Personally, I just use the cheapie plan because between home and work, the vast majority of my data usage is covered by WiFi so I never use 5GB just by streaming audio and looking stuff up when I'm out and about.
Not saying it's as good as some other markets, but it can still be reasonably affordable if you just need to handle work-related things as outlined in the article. Budget and mid-range smartphones are incredibly cheap and run circles around the old PocketPCs and Android phones I was using to browse the web and stream media 10-15 years ago.
Personally, I just use the cheapie plan because between home and work, the vast majority of my data usage is covered by WiFi
Poor people don't always have in-home wifi. They can barely afford a phone, let alone a phone PLUS wired internet. And if they're work is physical, they probably don't have the luxury of using work wireless either.
And even at your lower $25/month plan, that's still 3-4 hours of work at minimum wage. For somebody who likely has trouble meeting basic needs like food and shelter. And heaven help them if they get sick.
Not arguing with the fact that costs are high or worse than in many other countries. Just replying to the statement that TMo's lowest package was $60/month.
I currently use them as my mobile carrier and they have options for 5.5GB-"unlimited" data for $25-50/month.
T-mobile's post paid plans are a much better deal with multiple lines of service, though (the $60/month plan for 1 line is only $90/month for 3 lines, for example).
You can get fairly cheap, by Western standard (under 200/250$) brand new phones with great screen, good camera, not many/no annoying apps that affect the daily usage [1], fairly cheap contract (around $5 a month)[2]. It does require some Googling/timing but possible.
While $200 is a lot of money for many people, there are options where you can go even lower and get a decent phone if you sacrifice some functionality (like not having a good camera)
[1] Poco X3 for example, during sale goes well under 250$. Note: it does have privacy concerns associated with it.
Gmail is soon turning on two-step verification for all accounts. The very poor - the people who use library computers to check their email - often do not have phones at all. I truly don't know what they're going to do when all online services require MFA.
Wow poor people are not popular here. 200$ seems to be throwaway money for this bubble and people wonder why 1000$ are possible now...
The lack of compassion and ability to imagine being poor are really alarming. The time those people will turn against you will come as the divide is growing. You should really try to understand and articles like that are there to help you. It's not a target to attack based upon your privileged reality. Especially because the digital age many of you build for wealthy customers are part of the problem.
89 comments
[ 8.9 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadFar too much of the modern world including our societal systems require a smartphone. Wether its a QR code showing COVID vax status, checking email, engaging with your local bank via the app, connecting with friends, etc.
We have built a world that is so reliant on the apps ecosystem (at least in the US) so it's unhelpful to say "flip phone can get text messages".
I don't really disagree that we're moving to a place where a smartphone is universally needed because of apps but I'm not sure we're universally there today.
So no, it’s not food and water level necessary but it’s pretty damn important.
A smartphone just happens to be the easiest way to get phone/SMS & internet. As noted elsewhere, a massive number of Americans (and people worldwide) use their phone as their only means of internet access.
OK so you need a printer, ink, probably a PC… (Or at least access to one, which would be a fine requirement, if the US had good public transport and libraries...)
I won't disagree that these things are massively inconvenient compared to doing it all though a smartphone, but it's far from impossible.
I suppose it didn't need to be an activated phone though. You could probably get buy with cheap android phone you buy at CVS and use the school's wifi.
And for what? Understanding and accessing government services, particularly for those trying to escape homelessness. Most of this is done online. The only other realistic option is a public library, but the hours are limited, and they’re geographically inaccessible to lots of folks.
And that is a luxury device - I am sure there are Android phones that are much cheaper.
Sounds alot like Captain Vimes' boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness. Some people are just too poor to be able to buy a pair of good boots.
The iPhone 6s is still receiving update, though it may not be long for this world, the iPhone 7 and 8 are still one and two years newer than said 6s - as such would likely receive updates a year and two years additional. That would put the iPhone 8 End-of-Life at 2024. That's 2 years out, and the 6s hasn't even finished receiving updates, so closer to 3 years out.
> According to 2020 numbers from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, those in the lowest 20 percent of income earners spent $150 more a year on their cell phones than they did in 2016.
I spend $180/y for unlimited talk/text with 5 GB data per month using Verizon's network through US Mobile. It's a prepaid monthly plan, no credit, no contract. You also have the option to use T-Mobile's GSM network if your existing phone is incompatible or coverage is better in your area. For phones there are plenty of options in the $200 range, both used like GP mentions and new. On the new side I recently picked up 2 Galaxy A12 for the niece/nephew, $170 each. They started on Android 10 but have gotten 11 and are due to get 12 year (and a few patches after that but not likely 13).
So for <$240 a year folks should be able to be connected to decent new phones and service yet in the last 4 years people in the lowest 20% income bracket have been led to spend 2/3 of that more in addition to what they were already paying. I'm not sure where the exact numbers are in the linked source but I'd be curious if these folks are being led to spend more than I am on my high end phone and phone plan.
For that price these folks are getting a lot of value and I don't think that's a problem in itself more than fulfilling any other modern life need is a problem for low income folks. I think the real problem is a combination of predatory tactics from the market as described in the article and lack of knowledge of alternatives amongst low income people. It's hard to learn where you can get a quality phone and plan when you don't have internet and the local T-Mobile store's $0 up front plan is the only way you will have a phone for work next week.
I got fed up with replacing my phone, so I've started getting those rugged phones marketed at construction workers. They're pretty amazing. I've submerged mine in water, dropped it in all sorts of surfaces (including concrete, gravel), gotten snow on it, gotten mud on it. The screen is immaculate. I've owned it for a few years and it still has something like 40h+ battery life. Best phone I've ever bought.
Some downsides is that it's pretty heavy and comes with bundle-ware from John Deere (easy enough to uninstall). It's not a fast or pretty phone by any standard, but my phone use is very basic so for me it matters more that it lasts than bells and whistles.
Poor mass transit is a huge burden for the poor.
One thing I noticed about America after moving there was that they don't allow you to tether to your phone's internet from your computer. Phone data is only allowed to be used from your phone -- you have to pay for a separate internet connection if you want to check email on your computer. I found this to be pretty disgusting.
In fact, between my spouse, my dad and I, we have 4 lines with Mint Mobile, and they do not prevent us from tethering or using our data as hotspots.
The 3 smartphone only plans are $15/month, unlimited talk/text, 4GB data. the 4th plan is $20/month, 10GB data, and sits in an LTE hotspot, handling his modest home internet needs.
Where he lives (very rural), he'd have to pay thousands to get cable internet (or worse, DSL) run to his house, so this is a great alternative. But just a few years ago, this kind of thing was harder to find, harder to set up, more expensive, slower, with lower data caps. Competition helps, but the situation isn't perfect.
More prevalent use of dual sim phones would also help - I get all the data from my work sim, but most of my calls are made on the personal one.
The federal government also subsidizes service for low income households: https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline-consumers
But, Smartphones are "Tax on the Poor" in a totally different way, it's a Cognitive tax. There are people in my country (India) who are already in poverty and would have to work a lot more than the elites to break away from poverty gap. But all these apps, that monger on attention are taking any hope of them getting out of poverty and making them stay in there. It's almost impossible to break people away from the phones, Most of their waking hours is spent on the Screen.
As someone who comes from a family of farmers and having a lot of my childhood friends and relatives stuck in poverty. The negative effects are alarmingly high. I hope there comes some regulation on these apps.
I can pay cash for a car quite easily. That may be harder for a plane ticket, but not out of the question. My point is there isn't even an option in the parking lot.
On a side note, I do agree forcing people to use an app to pay for parking is complete BS.
You don’t need the app.
> You could get a simpler, cheaper one. That is not the problem.
Why one person can buy a stupid phone while other people need the government to protect them from doing the same even though stupid phones are cheaper?
The big one is that your boss can easily throw around your zero-hours "contract" when everyone has a leash. Before mobile phones that wasn't quite so easy. If you were out with your family you couldn't get called and threatened into taking another shift.
For example, Instagram pushing/peer-pressuring people to travel/buy/share more feels fine to me when it is an average household with with some level of stability. This is not true everywhere.
I'm talking about families whose total monthly earning is about 150 dollars. Families where the easier choice was to not go to the hospital for leukemia and let them be, than go to a hospital. Where a second Girl child is as close to a bad news as it gets. And yet and yet almost everybody with a smartphone within these community, scrolls through infinite feeds of tik-tok like content, for hours on end.
The way I see it, these social media are very similar to alcohol/other drugs. An infinite cage, from which There is little to no escape. Facebook is as close to a quicksand as it gets. Progressively pulling people in and keeping them where they are, not letting them go where they could be.
Countries like Romania has even cheaper plans. Why is this still an issue for world richiest country?
Even though I make very good money, I'm very strict about how much I spend on my phones. I use mint sim and for two lines I pay about $40 a month, I have 10 gigs per line.
I only buy my phone's cash, and while recently I have treated myself to a new pixel 6, I was doing just fine with a $300 phone. And that's closer to the high end, but I've definitely seen people walk to T-Mobile and buy three or four iPhones, then get into really nasty loud arguments when they can't make their $300 a month bill.
As a side note, I absolutely hate how everything needs to be a social justice issue. Saying that companies like DoorDash expect you to have a working cell phone, and this is extremely oppressive doesn't do anyone any favors.
But then we run into Wired's incentives. They need clicks, writing nonsense gets them that.
I bought a used iPhone 7 literally two days ago for $65. Prior to this I've been using iPhone SE that I purchased for about $100 over 3 years ago. Works great.
There is absolutely no reason you have to spend a lot of money on a phone.
I wonder how well it works when updated to the highest iOS version available for it.
Most people use their phone for angry political rants and maybe finding dinner.
If your poor your you can get a huawei phone used for $59 and you’re good.
You can get a cell/SMS plan (no data) for less, but then you're relying on public wifi for internet access (and none at home, unless you buy a wired connection).
Personally, I just use the cheapie plan because between home and work, the vast majority of my data usage is covered by WiFi so I never use 5GB just by streaming audio and looking stuff up when I'm out and about.
Not saying it's as good as some other markets, but it can still be reasonably affordable if you just need to handle work-related things as outlined in the article. Budget and mid-range smartphones are incredibly cheap and run circles around the old PocketPCs and Android phones I was using to browse the web and stream media 10-15 years ago.
Poor people don't always have in-home wifi. They can barely afford a phone, let alone a phone PLUS wired internet. And if they're work is physical, they probably don't have the luxury of using work wireless either.
And even at your lower $25/month plan, that's still 3-4 hours of work at minimum wage. For somebody who likely has trouble meeting basic needs like food and shelter. And heaven help them if they get sick.
I currently use them as my mobile carrier and they have options for 5.5GB-"unlimited" data for $25-50/month.
Nothing more was implied.
T-mobile's post paid plans are a much better deal with multiple lines of service, though (the $60/month plan for 1 line is only $90/month for 3 lines, for example).
While $200 is a lot of money for many people, there are options where you can go even lower and get a decent phone if you sacrifice some functionality (like not having a good camera)
[1] Poco X3 for example, during sale goes well under 250$. Note: it does have privacy concerns associated with it.
[2] https://imgur.com/a/d1lkYcc - £2 per month for 1GB data, 200 mins for calls
The lack of compassion and ability to imagine being poor are really alarming. The time those people will turn against you will come as the divide is growing. You should really try to understand and articles like that are there to help you. It's not a target to attack based upon your privileged reality. Especially because the digital age many of you build for wealthy customers are part of the problem.