846
I'm working on it, ok?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
846 points (97.3% liked)
Memes
8422 readers
280 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I didn't say they were. Please re-read what I wrote:
Yes, you can go to a library. I love libraries. My wife is a librarian. That doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't spend $7 a month for a lowest tier Netflix account just to make their lives a little better. Maybe Netflix wouldn't make your life better. Someone with kids who wants them to be able to watch Teletubbies or Peppa Pig whenever they want, that makes both the parents' lives and the kids' lives better.
You are doing something no different from the "stop eating so much avocado toast" guy. Maybe not having avocado toast is a first world problem, but those people don't live in a third world country. So why should they live like they do?
I was super poor in the 1990s. I still bought CDs and DVDs because they made my life better so I wasn't unhappy all the time. Sure, I could have gotten all of my music and movies from the library. On the other hand, I couldn't have listened to the music I liked any time I wanted. Could I have instead saved that money for an emergency or for retirement? Sure I could have. It would have made my life worse and, yes, been damaging to my mental health. I'm not sure why you think libraries existing cure any mental health issues brought upon by not being able to afford to have a better quality of life in a first world country.
I'm not saying Netflix and fast food are keeping people poor like that guy about avocado toast.
I'm saying that if you can't afford an emergency, that's an emergency itself.
Buying fast food and Netflix (and all the other things that go with that) instead of saving up so you can afford an emergency is irresponsible.
Not being able to afford Netflix and/or fast food isn't being "slightly better quality of life than if they were dirt poor." I may not have been dirt poor. But I was buy expired milk and bread to freeze, can't afford minutes for my flip phone while my friends have smart phones, poor. And my quality of life wasn't "slightly better" than "dirt poor." I had a furnished apartment, a color TV, and was able to borrow videos from the library for entertainment.
And I'm saying not spending $15-$30 a month on things that make your quality of life better is not enough to cover any emergency you need to save cash for.
Not having running water is also a first world problem. I assume you think people want running water.
As for a flip phone, do you think anyone can get by in the modern world with a flip phone unless they are working some incredibly shitty job? You were poor when things were cheaper. The fact that you mentioned a color TV alone shows that this was a long time ago now that all TVs are color TVs.
This is no different from "I could afford college when I went without taking out any loans."
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.
https://lemmy.world/comment/8998795
https://lemmy.world/comment/8995035
Pretty sure I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm also not sure how I can take "I didn't say everyone" out of context.