1867
Something something avocado toast (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
194 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's a whole lot more than you think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
  • [–] -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
    •
  • [–] 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