It was the mid 2000’s. And people spend a lot more than $15-30/month on fast food and streaming services. For the people whose finances I’ve seen, it’s usually closer to 30% of their monthly income that goes to pure wants.
Also, someone can absolutely survive in today’s world without a smart phone. It definitely makes things easier to have one though. Not really comparable to today anyway. You can get a basic smartphone for free nowadays. Couldn’t do that back in the 2000’s. The equivalent today is getting a flagship versus a cheapy phone.
I agree that water is a need. I’m talking strictly fast food, eating out, and things like Netflix, Spotify, etc.
This the second time you’ve put words in my mouth. I may have misunderstood what you said initially. But first you’re saying I’m like that avocado toast guy (when I’m not saying people can solve their poverty), and now you’re saying I’m a college was cheap for me guy.
Costs are higher than they have ever been and that’s why it’s even more important these days to control your spending. Costs are high. Wages haven’t kept up. It’s the sucky reality of the world we live in and telling people to keep spending their money irresponsibly in the name of comfort is just going to damn them to worse conditions as they go into debt when real problems arise and that debt puts them in even worse conditions where now they absolutely cannot afford their true bottom of the barrel needs without more debt.
It was the mid 2000’s. And people spend a lot more than $15-30/month on fast food and streaming services. For the people whose finances I’ve seen, it’s usually closer to 30% of their monthly income that goes to pure wants.
And yet you made a general statement about poor people saying that none of them should spend the $7.99 a month for the lowest tier Netflix service because that $7.99 could go into their emergency fund instead.
We’re talking in circles. You think I only mentioned Netflix. I didn’t. I also said fast food. You also think I said poor people. I didn’t. My suggestion is for everyone.
If you can’t afford luxury items (and I include fast food and streaming services in that category) then you shouldn’t spend your money on them.
I would no sooner suggest someone to purchase Netflix over feeding themselves and their family. And that’s what you could end up having to spend your emergency fund on if you lose your job. But you place these luxuries on the same tier as necessities and that’s just simply irresponsible.
Go ahead and tell all your friends and family, “Don’t worry, I know money is tight, but you shouldn’t save for future emergencies by cutting corners today. I think you should give that money to McDonald’s and Netflix. They clearly need it more than you do. I mean, you can always just put it on your credit card and pay 30% interest!”
So everyone should not pay $7.99 a month plus maybe $20 for fast food to because then they’ll have an emergency fund? And without that per month you’ll be able to afford to feed your family? That’s nonsense. Even if it were $50 a month, that would be nonsense.
People are entitled to live decent lives where they aren’t miserable all the time. I have no idea why you think they aren’t.
What do you suggest people do? What would you tell someone who is scraping by and doesn’t have an emergency fund to do? Would you say they should carry on and not worry about emergencies? How should they deal with it when one does come along? I’m genuinely curious what your suggestions would be
I wish everyone could live the perfect most comfortable lives all the time. Seriously I do. But you can’t ignore that the reality is that’s not the world you and I live in and sometimes it comes down to survival…
An average is just that, an average. And it’s an average heavily weighted towards the rich.
It means that a vast percentage of people spend less than that, some of them far less.
And what I suggest they do is keep doing it because it’s only a few bucks a month and it won’t make a difference.
My family is not poor and we do not spend anywhere near $300 a month eating out. But we do eat out sometimes. It makes us happy. Sometimes I buy Taco Bell for my daughter. It makes her happy and I like to make her happy because it makes me happy.
You would have us never do any of it.
What else should people deny their kids in the name of money? Toys? Let them play with a stick and a rock?
I never said everyone. I never made that assumption. I only suggested that everyone should prioritize saving for an emergency over luxury.
I would suggest you do other things for your family to make them happy that doesn’t involve spending money. Go to the library, parks, etc.
It’s not in the name of money that you temporarily withhold these things. It’s in the name of survival and making sure your kids aren’t obligated to take care of you in the future.
Your mentality is one of denial and defeatism. You don’t want to improve your life because you’d rather have a few nice temporary things in the now.
What should someone do when an emergency comes along and they don’t have the money to afford it? You’re not thinking ahead.
It’s not about the money. Without an emergency fund, you are stuck going into debt. If something happens to you or your family and you have to go into debt, what then? Do you still keep eating out and go further into debt? So you never retire? You force your daughter to have to help support you when you’re older and no longer able to work? All because you didn’t want to change your situation? Because it’s just a few bucks and won’t make a difference?
I’m not going to call you a liar, but do you actually track your spending? Is it really $20/mo on eating out? Every single person who has told me they only spend a few bucks on eating out was proven wrong when we went through their spending.
We’re talking in circles. You think I only mentioned Netflix. I didn’t. I also said fast food. You also think I said poor people. I didn’t. My suggestion is for everyone.
…this is exhausting. I said my suggestion is for everyone. Not that everyone spends $300/mo.
I’m done with this conversation. Several times now you’ve either put words in my mouth or taken what I’ve said out of context. I figured at first that you just thought I was targeting or speaking ill of poor people. Or that I thought “this one simple trick will guarantee that you’re not poor” or some other such nonsense. I figured that maybe a little back and forth would help clarify my position.
Clearly you think people spend a lot less than they do and that there’s no point in even trying to improve one’s situation.
It was the mid 2000’s. And people spend a lot more than $15-30/month on fast food and streaming services. For the people whose finances I’ve seen, it’s usually closer to 30% of their monthly income that goes to pure wants.
Also, someone can absolutely survive in today’s world without a smart phone. It definitely makes things easier to have one though. Not really comparable to today anyway. You can get a basic smartphone for free nowadays. Couldn’t do that back in the 2000’s. The equivalent today is getting a flagship versus a cheapy phone.
I agree that water is a need. I’m talking strictly fast food, eating out, and things like Netflix, Spotify, etc.
This the second time you’ve put words in my mouth. I may have misunderstood what you said initially. But first you’re saying I’m like that avocado toast guy (when I’m not saying people can solve their poverty), and now you’re saying I’m a college was cheap for me guy.
Costs are higher than they have ever been and that’s why it’s even more important these days to control your spending. Costs are high. Wages haven’t kept up. It’s the sucky reality of the world we live in and telling people to keep spending their money irresponsibly in the name of comfort is just going to damn them to worse conditions as they go into debt when real problems arise and that debt puts them in even worse conditions where now they absolutely cannot afford their true bottom of the barrel needs without more debt.
And yet you made a general statement about poor people saying that none of them should spend the $7.99 a month for the lowest tier Netflix service because that $7.99 could go into their emergency fund instead.
We’re talking in circles. You think I only mentioned Netflix. I didn’t. I also said fast food. You also think I said poor people. I didn’t. My suggestion is for everyone.
If you can’t afford luxury items (and I include fast food and streaming services in that category) then you shouldn’t spend your money on them.
I would no sooner suggest someone to purchase Netflix over feeding themselves and their family. And that’s what you could end up having to spend your emergency fund on if you lose your job. But you place these luxuries on the same tier as necessities and that’s just simply irresponsible.
Go ahead and tell all your friends and family, “Don’t worry, I know money is tight, but you shouldn’t save for future emergencies by cutting corners today. I think you should give that money to McDonald’s and Netflix. They clearly need it more than you do. I mean, you can always just put it on your credit card and pay 30% interest!”
So everyone should not pay $7.99 a month plus maybe $20 for fast food to because then they’ll have an emergency fund? And without that per month you’ll be able to afford to feed your family? That’s nonsense. Even if it were $50 a month, that would be nonsense.
People are entitled to live decent lives where they aren’t miserable all the time. I have no idea why you think they aren’t.
You are minimizing how much people spend on streaming services and fast food.
Average spending on eating out in the US is over $300/mo. https://www.statista.com/statistics/237215/average-away-from-home-food-expenditures-of-united-states-households/
What do you suggest people do? What would you tell someone who is scraping by and doesn’t have an emergency fund to do? Would you say they should carry on and not worry about emergencies? How should they deal with it when one does come along? I’m genuinely curious what your suggestions would be
I wish everyone could live the perfect most comfortable lives all the time. Seriously I do. But you can’t ignore that the reality is that’s not the world you and I live in and sometimes it comes down to survival…
No, you’re assuming everyone spends that much.
An average is just that, an average. And it’s an average heavily weighted towards the rich.
It means that a vast percentage of people spend less than that, some of them far less.
And what I suggest they do is keep doing it because it’s only a few bucks a month and it won’t make a difference.
My family is not poor and we do not spend anywhere near $300 a month eating out. But we do eat out sometimes. It makes us happy. Sometimes I buy Taco Bell for my daughter. It makes her happy and I like to make her happy because it makes me happy.
You would have us never do any of it.
What else should people deny their kids in the name of money? Toys? Let them play with a stick and a rock?
I never said everyone. I never made that assumption. I only suggested that everyone should prioritize saving for an emergency over luxury.
I would suggest you do other things for your family to make them happy that doesn’t involve spending money. Go to the library, parks, etc.
It’s not in the name of money that you temporarily withhold these things. It’s in the name of survival and making sure your kids aren’t obligated to take care of you in the future.
Your mentality is one of denial and defeatism. You don’t want to improve your life because you’d rather have a few nice temporary things in the now.
What should someone do when an emergency comes along and they don’t have the money to afford it? You’re not thinking ahead.
It’s not about the money. Without an emergency fund, you are stuck going into debt. If something happens to you or your family and you have to go into debt, what then? Do you still keep eating out and go further into debt? So you never retire? You force your daughter to have to help support you when you’re older and no longer able to work? All because you didn’t want to change your situation? Because it’s just a few bucks and won’t make a difference?
I’m not going to call you a liar, but do you actually track your spending? Is it really $20/mo on eating out? Every single person who has told me they only spend a few bucks on eating out was proven wrong when we went through their spending.
You literally said everyone:
https://lemmy.world/comment/8995035
…this is exhausting. I said my suggestion is for everyone. Not that everyone spends $300/mo.
I’m done with this conversation. Several times now you’ve either put words in my mouth or taken what I’ve said out of context. I figured at first that you just thought I was targeting or speaking ill of poor people. Or that I thought “this one simple trick will guarantee that you’re not poor” or some other such nonsense. I figured that maybe a little back and forth would help clarify my position.
Clearly you think people spend a lot less than they do and that there’s no point in even trying to improve one’s situation.