3 ms·
I guess people are downvoting him because of his assurance that instead of managing finances one simply has to earn more. For most people earning more is not f
by JaumeGreen 10y ago
I guess people are downvoting him because of his assurance that instead of managing finances one simply has to earn more.
For most people earning more is not feasible, at least not while having some personal live, family matters and depends also on their education, upbringing and people they know.
Some people work a fuckton of hours for a measly pay, and so they can't get to earn more, because they have no time to improve themselves or even to go to interviews.
For these kind of people, that is the majority, some time of personal accounting will be easy and will bear lots of fruits, while they wouldn't be able to improve their jobs in the near future.
- vinceguidry 10y agoThe post in question currently stands at 31 points. One quick downvote and all up from there. You are right that for most people earning more isn't feasible. But I wasn't speaking for everybody. Specifically for the upwardly mobile. If you aren't in the position to increase your income then you by definition aren't upwardly mobile.
- Nimitz14 10y agoI didn't read it as "one simply has to earn more". He's saying it's better to work on things that will lead to one earning more money, rather spending time monitoring how much one is spending. The first leads to an improved state, the second is just for ensuring one's state does not worsen. With one your increasing your 'cap', with the other you're just maximizing given a 'cap' (cap meaning the amount of money you can work with).
- bloat 10y agoIts not an either or proposition though. It's frankly ridiculous to propose that I could give up actively managing my finances and use that extra time (an hour a week maybe) to significantly increase my income.