That argument is stupid, because usually people need a reason to save for. Now rent is so high that people can barely save, and houses are so expensive that even if they do and get a credit with their staggering student debt, they’ll never be able to afford it.
So what do people do? they just enjoy the small things, because they know they’ll never have the big ones.
It’s not stupid, you’ve just stupidly misinterpreted it.
I believe you’ve mistakenly interpreted it to mean that I disagree with the premise that people have been priced out of the things we’ve come to believe are the standard of living now. That’s not what I was objecting to.
My point is that money should ALWAYS be managed. If you have no money, then, well I guess it manages itself. But if you have very little money, you shouldn’t be buying s $60k car you can’t afford. You buy a $3k car you can. Saying, I can’t afford a house so I’m going to go into massive amounts of debt to buy a car to make up for it, is the REASON you need to manage money.
There is no such thing as a $3k car, those days are gone. If it’s going to be something that is expected to start and drive every day without major repairs that are overdue, you need to spend closer to $10k.
I know this because I recently bought my sons some used cars. Used 2006 Volvo was $6k in about as good of condition it could be for the age and miles. Still needed a bunch of little things that quickly added up. New tires ($800), PCV breather system ($120 did myself), new ignition coils ($200, did myself), brakes ($80, did myself), etc. If I wasn’t doing my own work, it would have been 3x the cost.
I also bought a 2013, nearly identical car to the 06. It needs far less, put tires on it, still has an evaporative emissions leak causing a check engine light. Not going to fix that.
you just avocado toast even harder. Now you not only over generalized people, and willfully ignore the cause of the problem.
You then turn items that are essential to life in society into irresponsible luxuries. If you can’t afford to rent there is no such thing as an affordable phone/car.
The point of the post is that it’s not merely impulsive spending and you went, “nah, it is just that”
A $60k car and a $1600 cell phone are NOT essential for life and I didn’t just “nah, it is just that,” the argument. You’re just having reading comprehension problems.
Let’s drop to your level. Are you stupid enough to believe that people don’t buy things they can’t afford? If you only have even $10 to your name and you need food, you go to the most economical grocery store you can get to and maximize your purchases. You don’t walk into Starbucks and order a latte. The OP implied that because there is as larger economic problem at hand, money management isn’t an issue. They are ALWAYS both an issue.
And yes I understand that the problem is that people have to manage $10 now instead of $1000. It was not my intention to minimalize that.
You invent a scenario, and applied that to all people who struggle then? Context be dammed? Damn, sounds like a bad take.
The OP context is “older generations say that things are easy, when they had it easy. But here is an example that shows that things are not equal by a long shot.
Then you show up with a ‘if people would just stop eating avocado toast, they would have it just as easy’ ignoring the message in the OP and the systemic issues that not only make owning both your stated items a necessary component of life, but makes everything much more expensive.
A stupid take. Do struggling people own $1300 phones or expensive cars? Maybe there are some but not a lot. You fucking just dammed everyone struggling over just the possibility, inventing a character flaw on an entire class of people.
You can’t get there buying cars and phones you can’t afford either.
That argument is stupid, because usually people need a reason to save for. Now rent is so high that people can barely save, and houses are so expensive that even if they do and get a credit with their staggering student debt, they’ll never be able to afford it.
So what do people do? they just enjoy the small things, because they know they’ll never have the big ones.
It’s not stupid, you’ve just stupidly misinterpreted it.
I believe you’ve mistakenly interpreted it to mean that I disagree with the premise that people have been priced out of the things we’ve come to believe are the standard of living now. That’s not what I was objecting to.
My point is that money should ALWAYS be managed. If you have no money, then, well I guess it manages itself. But if you have very little money, you shouldn’t be buying s $60k car you can’t afford. You buy a $3k car you can. Saying, I can’t afford a house so I’m going to go into massive amounts of debt to buy a car to make up for it, is the REASON you need to manage money.
There is no such thing as a $3k car, those days are gone. If it’s going to be something that is expected to start and drive every day without major repairs that are overdue, you need to spend closer to $10k.
I know this because I recently bought my sons some used cars. Used 2006 Volvo was $6k in about as good of condition it could be for the age and miles. Still needed a bunch of little things that quickly added up. New tires ($800), PCV breather system ($120 did myself), new ignition coils ($200, did myself), brakes ($80, did myself), etc. If I wasn’t doing my own work, it would have been 3x the cost.
I also bought a 2013, nearly identical car to the 06. It needs far less, put tires on it, still has an evaporative emissions leak causing a check engine light. Not going to fix that.
No, your take is very stupid
you just avocado toast even harder. Now you not only over generalized people, and willfully ignore the cause of the problem.
You then turn items that are essential to life in society into irresponsible luxuries. If you can’t afford to rent there is no such thing as an affordable phone/car.
The point of the post is that it’s not merely impulsive spending and you went, “nah, it is just that”
A $60k car and a $1600 cell phone are NOT essential for life and I didn’t just “nah, it is just that,” the argument. You’re just having reading comprehension problems.
Let’s drop to your level. Are you stupid enough to believe that people don’t buy things they can’t afford? If you only have even $10 to your name and you need food, you go to the most economical grocery store you can get to and maximize your purchases. You don’t walk into Starbucks and order a latte. The OP implied that because there is as larger economic problem at hand, money management isn’t an issue. They are ALWAYS both an issue.
And yes I understand that the problem is that people have to manage $10 now instead of $1000. It was not my intention to minimalize that.
You invent a scenario, and applied that to all people who struggle then? Context be dammed? Damn, sounds like a bad take.
The OP context is “older generations say that things are easy, when they had it easy. But here is an example that shows that things are not equal by a long shot.
Then you show up with a ‘if people would just stop eating avocado toast, they would have it just as easy’ ignoring the message in the OP and the systemic issues that not only make owning both your stated items a necessary component of life, but makes everything much more expensive.
A stupid take. Do struggling people own $1300 phones or expensive cars? Maybe there are some but not a lot. You fucking just dammed everyone struggling over just the possibility, inventing a character flaw on an entire class of people.
A very, very stupid take.