To think a smart phone is an essential?

[picklecustard]

So every time I see the debate about free lunches for poor families on Facebook and social media, there are always people who comment about the same families being able to afford ‘non-essential luxuries’ sometimes it’s Sky Tv sometimes cigarettes and booze, but one example that consistently gets mentioned is having an i-phone/smart phone/phone contract.

Quite baffled that in this day and age people consider possessing a smart phone as a non-essential luxury. I know few people with a landline nowadays and a mobile is the point of contact for most. It’s also far more useful in the case of an emergency as you always have it with you. Access to the internet via a phone is also a necessity to most- when I needed a job most vacancies were advertised online and needed to be applied for online, I don’t drive so do my food shopping online (as well as finding recipes online), doctors appointments are booked much more easily online for my local surgery, my bills and banking are managed via apps and online, my children’s school only send letters via ParentMail app or email so all news/forms/payments and everything relevant to their schooling requires my iphone. And that’s just a few examples. My phone is genuinely an essential for everyday living and I’m surprised people don’t see it that way!

@SuzieQQQ

No it’s not essential. Internet access yes, having a phone number you can be contacted on, yes.

So the better option is to get a landline/broadband at anywhere from £15-£30 a month, if you're lucky enough to have a decent enough credit rating that a company will take you on, the companies that offer the cheapest deals generally won't accept people with a poor credit history. So you're left with a more expensive option by those willing to take the risk. (Not saying the companies should but it's the way it is) a landline phone and then paying for calls individually on top. And then a laptop, tablet or home PC, which even second hand cost upwards of £80 - that's the cheapest second hand tablet I can find close to me. Rather than a smart phone that covers both those requirements, doesn't need broadband to get on the internet and can be paid for on a PAYG basis avoiding breaking contracts (and being penalised for doing so) if you don't have the money that month. All because some people don't like the idea that the cheapest and most suitable option is also the most popular? Right 🙄

I agree with pps - internet access is essential, but this doesn't need to be through a smartphone. If someone has internet access via a computer then they only need a very basic phone for emergencies surely.

But many have a phone and don’t have a laptop. It’s their only way of accessing the internet. Why are you ok with them having a laptop but not a phone? It’s just bizarre. Why does it bother you so much?

I have a smartphone on contract and I also have a second hand laptop which I bought from my friend. The laptop is there so that my children can do their work. And I have my phone because it’s convenient and to me necessary. For example, if I need to send a message to my child’s teacher while I’m out and about, I can just go on the ClassDojo App and it’s done. That’s just one example.

Those on low incomes shouldn’t have to explain themselves and people need to keep their noses out.

Until 2 years ago I had an old style brick of a phone. I started a new job and needed several apps, I was so reluctant to buy a smartphone but bought a second hand one for £80 and pay £8 a month for 3gb data and unlimited calls and texts. I largely agree that smartphones are essential but the amounts that some people are paying for them when they have others things that should be prioritised is crazy

A smartphone is probably essential nowadays but my smartphone was £99 and does exactly what anybody needs it to do.

someone should tell my DH, who uses a 75p nokia.

These threads debating what 'the poor' can have and should be allowed to have, by no doubt largely middle class posters are pretty grim.

I agree it’s sickening. It’s like they’re not allowed anything other than the very basics. And even then it the basics should be very basic.

@funinthesun19

These threads debating what 'the poor' can have and should be allowed to have, by no doubt largely middle class posters are pretty grim.

I agree it’s sickening. It’s like they’re not allowed anything other than the very basics. And even then it the basics should be very basic.

@funinthesun19 It's not that though! It's purely about better budgeting!

I have a £99 smartphone and I'm on a sim only deal. I chose this because on the off chance I lost my job, I could simply cancel it and not worry about being tied in with a contract.

Same with SKY TV. We never signed up for SKY as we couldn't afford it if one of us lost our jobs!

But the cheaper versions are not 'very basic', they're perfectly satisfactory.

I cannot for the life of me understand what extra a £1000 smartphone, or even a £500 one would do that my £100 one doesn't whether essential or just 'nice to have'.

So unless you really have endless money, why on earth would you go without higher priority items and spend your money on a phone that costs ten times more than you need it to?

@Clandestiney

These threads debating what 'the poor' can have and should be allowed to have, by no doubt largely middle class posters are pretty grim.

Who has said what people can/can't have? What people have said is if you're struggling for money then don't blow £50 a month on an iPhone contract. Which seems pretty obvious if you ask me.

I agree that a smartphone and/or computer with internet access is a necessity and not having it will definitely make it very difficult to do things like apply for jobs.
However iPhones are massively overpriced and unnecessary. We got Sony Xperia phones for my kids for about £100 and pay £5 a month which includes unlimited texts and calls, plus so much data they've never come close to using it up. Phone companies love to make you think you need a £30 a month contract and endless upgrades. Much cheaper to buy a phone outright, even s refurbished ones, and get a cheap SIM only contract.
I still think it's true that some people make poor decisions about where to prioritise spending money. It's not just phones. My sister in law is absolutely not well off but constantly buys branded clothes and trainers for her kids which they hardly wear before handing them onto us. We have a higher household income (still not rich) but would never buy branded trainers or tracksuits when unbranded from Primark or Tesco are perfectly fine.

I only have an old pay as you go mobile. Not smart at all! I hate the idea that I have to be in contact with people all the time. I feel as though it's been forced on us, everything is on a smart phone. I was stopped at Wells Cathedral and asked to use the track and trace, but as I can't I filled in a form. I use my laptop at home when I need it.

I had a smartphone. I hated it as it wouldn't fit in my pocket so I got rid and dug out my old faithful pebble phone which has no internet on it. I put a fiver every couple of months on it if needed.
I don't use the internet outside the house, inside the house I use my kindle or laptop.
For some, a smartphone may be essential, but for me personally it isn't.
My doctor tried to tell me that I needed an app to make appointments etc, he got a short shrift. It's utter rubbish to say it has to be done via app. If that was the case then there would be a hell of a lot of elderly people going without medical care. A point which my GP agreed with.

Smartphones are essential, latest model iPhones are not. I know one family, 4 adults living in one house, not one working. 3 of the 4 recently bought a new iPhone. I believe one was a 12, the other two 11's. Yesterday their microwave broke, they're in a panic about affording a new one when they have Christmas to pay for. They're on Facebook asking if anyone has a secondhand one they can have for free.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have smartphones, however for me it is not essential, and my life functions perfectly well without one.

I'm with Steamfan. I either don't know where I've put my mobile, or it's not charged.

@funinthesun19 It's not that though! It's purely about better budgeting!

I have a £99 smartphone and I'm on a sim only deal. I chose this because on the off chance I lost my job, I could simply cancel it and not worry about being tied in with a contract.
Honestly I do understand what you’re saying. My smartphone isn’t top of the range either but I do have a contract £30 per month. But what people are saying is that if I’m on a low income and have a contract it must mean I can’t feed my children properly and that I shouldn’t have it. It’s quite patronising to be honest. My cupboards and fridge are full and my home is warm. I do have weeks where the budget is a bit tight, but it’s not all the time. It’s nothing to do with my fucking smartphone 🤦🏼‍♀️

Same with SKY TV. We never signed up for SKY as we couldn't afford it if one of us lost our jobs!
I just have Netflix and NowTV movie package, because to me Sky is a big waste of money. I wouldn’t tell others not have it though because it’s none of my business.

I agree op, especially as my daughters school no longer sends letters but emails all news letters and important updates I’d be pretty screwed if I didn’t have a smartphone.
I still miss stuff as they post it on bloody Facebook which I’m not on .

@funinthesun19 If people have a contract and lose their job, they have my sympathy. Those who don't work or earn very little but choose a contract and then claim they can't feed their children are the ones that people are referring to.

Again, those who don't work but choose sky as they feel it's a priority are wrong again because food should always be the priority, not a sky package.

A smart phone isn't an essential. You can buy a cheap Nokia that has everything you need on a phone.

Pehop that only has "everything you need on a phone" if you have another route to access the internet. A cheap smartphone and contract is cheaper than the cheapest broadband contract I've seen.

YAB massively U

It's much cheaper and more efficient to have internet access at home with a cheaper computer.

I can't think of a single time when I used my phone for anything but posting photos or killing time in a train station or airport - definitively not essential.

It's so much easier and more efficient to have a bigger screen at home anyway. Who is expecting their kids to do homework on a phone? Any document is much easier to read on a decent size screen too.

Smartphones are a nice thing to have, but definitively not an essential.

Yanbu. Everything is done online these days. Even down to buying bus tickets. And schools don't seem to send letters home anymore. Instead they're sent via phones.

@TeamLucille

YAB massively U

It's much cheaper and more efficient to have internet access at home with a cheaper computer.

I can't think of a single time when I used my phone for anything but posting photos or killing time in a train station or airport - definitively not essential.

It's so much easier and more efficient to have a bigger screen at home anyway. Who is expecting their kids to do homework on a phone? Any document is much easier to read on a decent size screen too.

Smartphones are a nice thing to have, but definitively not an essential.

Are you taking the piss ? You think a pc and monthly internet access is cheaper ?

You think a pc and monthly internet access is cheaper ?
Given that 90% of households have internet access at home, it is cheaper.

@Ifailed

You think a pc and monthly internet access is cheaper ? Given that 90% of households have internet access at home, it is cheaper.

90% really?

Fluffybutter

why would I be "taking the piss" as you charmingly put it?
Have you even researched it?

How much do YOU pay for your internet? You might be paying far too much 😂

If restricted to basics, ONLY having a phone as opposed to ONLY having a computer would be a nightmare. Tell me about doing your CV and homeschooling your kids on a phone, that is more expensive anyway.