
Lessons from Cellphones on Distribution of Wealth - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/science/lessons-from-cellphones-on-distribution-of-wealth.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront
======
jtlien1
That the poor in Africa can have a cellphone... I get a kick out of watching
reruns of "Dallas". The mega rich oilmen depicted in that series did not have
cellphones. But because some people pioneered cellphones and got rich, then
because of that the poor in Africa are in someways richer than the oilmen of
"Dallas".

~~~
gnaritas
> then because of that the poor in Africa are in someways richer than the
> oilmen of "Dallas".

Not really; they're still poor, what actually happened is the world changed
making things only once not available to anyone available to everyone. That
really has no bearing on rich vs poor. Saying I'm richer today than Henry the
VIII is clearly wrong, even though I have access to much greater technology
and can do things he couldn't, he's was still vastly wealthier with the
ability to do whatever he wanted.

~~~
merpnderp
Could he fly to another part of the country? Could he easily and cheaply avoid
water/waste borne disease, eat fruit in winter, or call someone from his phone
while on the road? He would have paid large portions of his wealth to do any
of these things. So yes, nearly everyone is richer than good ol Henry.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
I am pretty sure the comment you are replying to addressed all of that.

"... I have access to much greater technology ..."

~~~
merpnderp
Wish HN had a an notification option for responses. But I thought I made clear
that with all Henry's wealth and a strong desire to purchase the results of
modern technology, he couldn't get them. So he could command the labor of many
times as many people as a modern poor person, but he couldn't use that labor
to accomplish nearly as much as many poor people can today. Is he wealthier? I
guess it depends on what you value more. Being able to have someone bring you
dirty water from a well on command, or having to get your own purified clean
water from the tap in your house.

~~~
gnaritas
Wealth is power and freedom, not access to stuff; I have to work for a living,
Henry the VIII was a king with the power of life and death over others, he was
wealthier by any reasonable measure. My access to greater tech doesn't make me
wealthier.

------
unprepare
Full text of the study is here:

[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6264/1073.full](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6264/1073.full)

~~~
kristopolous
Do you know what "wealth" is academically? (I don't) How much of it access to
capital (credit worthiness), ownership of property, influence over the commons
(political power)?

The last one is tricky. If one society says say, all water is privatized and
you need x amount for your factory then you purchase it. If another says all
water is communal, then you need to assuage the community to permit you x
amount.

At the end you have the effectively the same thing and these two people have
the same "water wealth". Measuring generalized wealth quantitatively however,
I don't know what that means.

~~~
magicalist
Your answer is in the study[1] (see section 1D) which was modeled to align
broadly with the Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey[2]

[1]
[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/11/24/350.6264....](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/11/24/350.6264.1073.DC1/Blumenstock.SM.pdf)

[2] [http://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR259-DHS-
Fin...](http://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-FR259-DHS-Final-
Reports.cfm)

~~~
kristopolous
Awesome ... I have my reading for this evening. Thanks.

