It's so stupid. Spend less then you earn, save, don't buy the latest shit. So many people waste their money buying new toys like the latest iPhones or Androids, fancy ass cars and expensive vacations. All my neighbors make like blue collar salaries; $50k at the most, but they have the latest treager grills, fancy infinitis, audis in their driveways, new tvs every year; and guess what tens of thousands in credit card debt
It’s not about the iPhone (or coffees, avocado toast, etc.) It’s about the habit of unnecessary spending. Many people (obviously not all) could handle unexpected expenses if they had better financial habits.
> It’s about the habit of unnecessary spending. Many people (obviously not all) could handle unexpected expenses if they had better financial habits.
What you call unnecessary spending is what actually floats the entire economy. If everyday folks’ disposable income dries up, the whole country will suffer, even your bullshit startup in a converted loft in SOMA or whatever it is that you do that earns you a six figure living.
>> This logic breaks down when you get an unexpected medical bill, or the car you rely to get to your job breaks down and you get fired, etc
There seems to be some logical disconnect here.
Saving diligently will help you tide over the things you mention. How is this an argument against saving ?
Many medical bills will wipe out savings regardless of the amount.
NPR has a good series on medical bills that comes out pretty frequently. Here is one where the 14 weeks of dialysis for a new kidney cost about a half million dollars. The person's insurance is via the spouse who is also a MD. The family is likely going bankrupt :
Agreed. Monthly healthcare spend for my family is way more than a fresh iPhone. It's not even a particularly good plan. Good luck shopping around for insurance; It's a total nightmare.
The article is talking about three months living expenses at poverty level, not unexpected medical bills. The fact that medical procedures are ridiculously expensive if you don't have insurance should not be a reason not to save for emergencies, and it's definitely not related to the findings of the study.
> This logic breaks down when you get an unexpected medical bill, or the car you rely to get to your job breaks down and you get fired, etc.
How?
I have experienced all of those things -- except replace "getting fired" with "my business failed".
My "oh shit" fund -- six months' worth of expenses -- got me through every one of those personal disasters. It gave me peace of mind, and the financial space to take care of myself, recover, and get back on the horse.
It was empowering.
Anybody can do this, if they want. It isn't easy, mind you.
It takes a big shift in mindset, time, and in my case, paying the price for a lot of poor decisions.
You aren't going to live in a trending part of town, or hit the bar every week. You'll cook at home a lot, probably live in a shared house, might even share a car or ride a bike to work. I've done all of those things.
And it is harder than it used to be.
Boomers don't get that.
Wages are lower.
Medical costs are insane -- and neither the establishment Republicans or Democrats have done anything to fix that, mind you.
Society encourages people to make horrible decisions, like borrowing insane amounts of money to buy the "college experience" and earn a worthless degree.
And the more of those traps you have fallen into, the harder climbing out of the hole will be.
Myself, I had to pay off a bunch of stupid debt.
But once you start to live below your means, and you experience that freedom, you never want to go back to the spend-everything-you-make lifestyle.
> I have experienced all of those things -- except replace "getting fired" with "my business failed".
If you’re in a position where you can easily start a (nonetheless failing) frivolous social app startup you’re already much more comfortable than most of the country.
> And it is harder than it used to be.
That’s the point. Certain individuals can still succeed today, but the fact that it is harder now than it was in the past is a point of concern.
> If you’re in a position where you can easily start a (nonetheless failing) frivolous social app startup you’re already much more comfortable than most of the country.
But then theres me and my wife, we bought the cheapest house in the neighborhood, we bought and paid off cheap cars, we designed our finances so we could easily life off my wife's teacher salary. Sure I take dev money and we buy more with it, but our total cost of living fits right around $2900 with half of that going to my mortgage.
We've added nice perks to the house: deck, redid the bathroom & kitchen etc... but those are for us and making us happy. We didn't do it to keep up with the jones
I live the same way, small house, cheap car. No debt. Then I see all the irresponsible people/biz/localgov getting bailed out and wonder why I bother.
It would have been smarter If i could have figured out how to work the (fractional reserve banking) system, instead I just avoided it as much as possible.
"Stupid poor people. They should learn to stay in their lane. Leave the good things in life to the folks who deserve it."
You have a point, but it comes across as insensitive when you fail to account for the uneven playing field most folks are struggling against. As a former "let them die" libertarian, I think I've come to the place where I realize it's not so clear cut. We have an economic system with non-linear results. Being wealthy usually makes you more wealthy with less effort than it takes to escape poverty.
After being financially devastated by a divorce, I am humbled and understand why people pursue short-term pleasure. Life is short and often brutal. I don't fully blame people who use whatever means available to find comfort, pleasure and happiness. Yes, I know wealth is not a sustainable path to those things, but it definitely works in the short term.
I have leaned libertarian (and still do to an extent) when it comes to many things, but I've never quite identified with the more right-wing 'individual responsibility' / 'poor people are a result of their own choices' perspective.
my personal experiences and having had many close friends who grew up poor or in otherwise very shitty situations make it so clear to me that a lot of the good choices I make are profoundly influenced by my direct surroundings (both physical and social), as well as an upbringing that, while poverty-line, was excellent.
My parents and extended family were great role models, and much as I might grumble about problems in our educational system, it was still pretty good. I was 'funneled' into having friends that also were more of a good than bad influence.
As I entered my twenties and explored the world, I met many people who weren't so fortunate. And as frustrating as it was at times to observe their 'bad choices', knowing the full and often painful story of all the stuff they didn't have growing up (role-models, time to just self-learn, a safe environment, etc.) made me more empathic than judgmental.
That's not to say that I believe nobody has their own responsibilities, or that bad behavior can just be excused by blaming parents or whatnot. Rather, it's complicated and I've been lucky enough to not be able to fully understand (many of the) the complications.
Yes, but the article is talking about homes earning under ~$63k. None of their neighbors are the ones being discussed, so the comment blaming individual misspending based on their actions is misplaced.
