3 ms·
Well, indeed; what that adds up to is that it's safer (if perhaps unwise, that's debatable) to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable one.
by abalashov 9y ago
Well, indeed; what that adds up to is that it's safer (if perhaps unwise, that's debatable) to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable one.
Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad.
- Consultant32452 9y ago>it's safer to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable one. No, it means you've failed to accurately assess what the "line" even is. >Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad. No, my advice was a specific set of principles and practices laid out within Ramsey's book which could help you to overcome the problems in your life that you were discussing. I was not promoting useless platitudes.
- abalashov 9y agoMy point was that with greater volatility, a smaller portion of income remains sufficiently consistent, and thus the line will be lower and the budget will be smaller.
- Consultant32452 9y agoI don't think you would feel that way if you actually read the book and followed a real written budget. I know this because I've lived it myself. The only difference between variable income and static income is gauging the size of your emergency fund. Otherwise, your budget is identical.
- abalashov 9y agoYes, but maintaining a bigger emergency fund implies spending less in other categories. :-)
- Consultant32452 9y agoNope. Building an emergency fund implies spending less in other categories, namely retirement savings. But once you've made those initial, temporary sacrifices, maintaining the emergency fund doesn't cost any more just because you have variable income.