▲ 1867 ▼ Something something avocado toast (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by ickplant@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 194 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Professorozone@lemmy.world -30 points 1 year ago (5 children) You can't get there buying cars and phones you can't afford either. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) The phone that you use every day, that is required to function in daily society, and is the NUMBER ONE priority when you're homeless, aside from maybe obtaining legal documentation? That cell phone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago OMG, would people get off the friggin cell phone thing already. People buy all kinds of things they can't afford. Money management would help with that. That was my only point. But if we HAVE to talk cell phones then fine. High end phones are over $1k. I just bought one for $200. To a person with little money, yeah cell phones too. permalink fedilink source parent [–] theolodis@feddit.org 20 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Professorozone@lemmy.world -18 points 1 year ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Red_October@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Ratio says it's actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can't afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it's a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -6 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot more than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] rbamgnxl5@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don't run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down. $10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) There is no such thing as a $3k car, Yes there is .... My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all... You can go lower pretty easily... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent [+] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's truly terrible but I don't know what that has to do with money management, which is the only point I'm trying to make. I agree on the rest of all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sporkbomber@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Nice strawman you got there, goes well with all the avocado toast I buy instead of using it for a mortgage payment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] exasperation@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) The highest priced iPhone, all max specs, is $1600. If you get a new one every year, and trade in the previous year's, you'll probably get around $600 trade in value. So we're talking $1000/year for the highest priced phone. On a monthly basis, we're talking $83/month. That's like a rounding error on rent, utilities, and food, much less transportation and health care. And, more realistically, people are buying $800 phones once every 2 years, maybe seeing something like a $600 net expense spread over 24 months, for $25/month. Phones are like the one thing that are cheaper in 2025 than in 1985. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago Hell yeah, grind away for basic necessities. Bet you're a dream to talk to at parties. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) The phone that you use every day, that is required to function in daily society, and is the NUMBER ONE priority when you're homeless, aside from maybe obtaining legal documentation? That cell phone? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago OMG, would people get off the friggin cell phone thing already. People buy all kinds of things they can't afford. Money management would help with that. That was my only point. But if we HAVE to talk cell phones then fine. High end phones are over $1k. I just bought one for $200. To a person with little money, yeah cell phones too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago OMG, would people get off the friggin cell phone thing already. People buy all kinds of things they can't afford. Money management would help with that. That was my only point. But if we HAVE to talk cell phones then fine. High end phones are over $1k. I just bought one for $200. To a person with little money, yeah cell phones too. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theolodis@feddit.org 20 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Professorozone@lemmy.world -18 points 1 year ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Red_October@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Ratio says it's actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can't afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it's a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -6 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot more than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] rbamgnxl5@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don't run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down. $10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) There is no such thing as a $3k car, Yes there is .... My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all... You can go lower pretty easily... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent [+] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Professorozone@lemmy.world -18 points 1 year ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Red_October@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Ratio says it's actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can't afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it's a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -6 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot more than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] rbamgnxl5@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don't run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down. $10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) There is no such thing as a $3k car, Yes there is .... My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all... You can go lower pretty easily... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent [+] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) The Ratio says it's actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can't afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it's a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -6 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot more than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -6 points 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot more than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mcdolan@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's a whole lot less than you think. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago No, it's not. It's not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it's significant. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbamgnxl5@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don't run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down. $10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) There is no such thing as a $3k car, Yes there is .... My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all... You can go lower pretty easily... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don't run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down. $10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) There is no such thing as a $3k car, Yes there is .... My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all... You can go lower pretty easily... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] voxthefox@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn't mean other people aren't struggling to find an affordable used car now. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] BlackSheep@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's truly terrible but I don't know what that has to do with money management, which is the only point I'm trying to make. I agree on the rest of all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's truly terrible but I don't know what that has to do with money management, which is the only point I'm trying to make. I agree on the rest of all of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sporkbomber@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Nice strawman you got there, goes well with all the avocado toast I buy instead of using it for a mortgage payment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] exasperation@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) The highest priced iPhone, all max specs, is $1600. If you get a new one every year, and trade in the previous year's, you'll probably get around $600 trade in value. So we're talking $1000/year for the highest priced phone. On a monthly basis, we're talking $83/month. That's like a rounding error on rent, utilities, and food, much less transportation and health care. And, more realistically, people are buying $800 phones once every 2 years, maybe seeing something like a $600 net expense spread over 24 months, for $25/month. Phones are like the one thing that are cheaper in 2025 than in 1985. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago Hell yeah, grind away for basic necessities. Bet you're a dream to talk to at parties. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 year ago Hell yeah, grind away for basic necessities. Bet you're a dream to talk to at parties. permalink fedilink source parent