“There’s this wild disconnect between what people are experiencing and what economists are experiencing,” says Nikki Cimino, a recruiter in Denver.
“There’s this wild disconnect between what people are experiencing and what economists are experiencing,” says Nikki Cimino, a recruiter in Denver.
I don’t understand the difference. It sounds like two ways of saying the same thing.
I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference, let me try again with a question: Does everyone who “makes the most expensive purchase of their life” end up living cheque to cheque because of that purchase?
No.
Why not, if the size of the purchase is the dominant factor in the equation? Which, remember, is quite literally what the OP here said: https://lemmy.world/comment/8540177
So I ask again: why are you trying to insist that the problem is the amount of money spent, rather than this lady not doing the maths? Surely it makes sense that the not doing the maths is the problem here?
What do you call it when you are both splitting hairs and beating a dead horse? Splitting a dead horse?
She made an expensive purchase. She is now paying more money for it. This causes her to have less money. This causes her to be paycheck to paycheck. What exactly are you disputing here?
If she decided to purchase name brand canned green beans, and it ended up costing twice as much as generic, that was also her “not doing the math”. But it would not harm her finances to a noticeable degree.
Saying the the size of a purchase has no bearing on its effect on your budget is so ridiculous I can’t believe I’m entertaining this discussion at all.
As a matter of fact, if your next response isn’t something vaguely worth taking about, I’m done with this whole…whatever this is.
It’s the fact that she can’t figure it out that’s her problem, not the fact that she bought something big. She could have done the same with beanie babies at $20 a pop and run up a hundred thousand in debt over the course of two, three, four years, whatever. She’d be in the same situation, but without a house. The problem is not the purchase, it’s that she’s bad with money, jesus fuck it’s like nobody on this fucking website understands how logic works.
Tell you what, I’m gonna block you now because you’re giving me brain cancer with all this exposure to your idiocy, so don’t worry about responding; I won’t see it.
There’s not much of a difference when the size of the purchase determines “the maths” of the monthly payment.
I did the maths before I purchased my home. The maths should inform the size of the purchase, not the other way around. I don’t get why you lot insist the problem is just how much she bought, rather than the fact that she didn’t do the maths.
We insist because “the monthly payment” is directly proportional to the purchase price of the home. You’re the one who seems to think the monthly payment is somehow completely independent of the price.
I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that “the largest purchase of my life” is not the reason for living cheque to cheque. It’s bad budgeting.
As an analogy, you’re insisting the fall is what kills someone, and I’m insisting it’s the sudden stop at the end. Because it is the sudden stop at the end. If just falling killed people, that Red Bull guy woulda died. If just making a large purchase put people in poverty, I would be too.