3 ms·
>(That’s true at every income level, anyway, not having a mansion in the Hamptons is “objectively” worse than having one.) I'm assuming, from context, that the
by lsc 7y ago
>(That’s true at every income level, anyway, not having a mansion in the Hamptons is “objectively” worse than having one.)
I'm assuming, from context, that the figure of merit for this discussion is having money in the future. Obviously, in the context of getting a reality tv show, a mansion in the Hamptons is "objectively" better than having a bunch of cash and a modest place to live, but we're talking about having money in the future here. Buying and living in a mansion is... usually not a great way to go about furthering that goal; I'd argue that living in a mansion, in the context of the goals we're talking about here, is objectively worse than living somewhere modest and putting the rest of the money you would have spent on the mansion in a low-cost index fund or something.
>Eating chicken today and saving so you can eat chicken in the future may be a better idea that eating prime rib and starving if you lose your income.
That's kinda my point? I mean, that if you can downgrade from beef to chicken (something that doesn't interfere with your current ability to earn money and does not incur future costs... something that will in fact lower future costs, as chicken is healthier than beef, and if you are poor, you are paying a lot more of your healthcare out of pocket than I am) sure, that's great. If your figure of merit is money in the future, eating chicken could be said to be objectively superior to eating beef.
When you aren't buying the absolute cheapest good available, you can usually find substitutes that are cheaper and impose fewer future costs, and sure, seeking those things out is great, and important to think about all up and down the income spectrum.
But there is nearly always a point at the bottom of the spectrum where there are no cheaper options that are actually cheaper long term - that don't impinge on your current ability to make money or impose big future costs.
If you don't have any place to cook, that dollar menu burger looks pretty good. If you can't get a regular loan and need a car for work, paying way too much for a low quality car at a 'buy here pay here' lot looks pretty good. Of course, both those things will cost you down the line, but what are you gonna do? you've gotta make it through today or there won't be a tomorrow to worry about at all.
- kgwgk 7y agoMaybe we agree then. If the objective is to save money for the future virtually everyone has the option of reducing consumption to some extent in order to increase wealth (saving or repaying debt). I thought that you were aligning with the "saving is out of reach for most people" side, I apologize for the misunderstanding.