4 ms·
I'm picking your response, but it's typical of an archetype that's bothersome in a different way to the GP's archetype of pointing out that volume discounts exi
by Jach 5y ago
I'm picking your response, but it's typical of an archetype that's bothersome in a different way to the GP's archetype of pointing out that volume discounts exist. When you're poor, your food budget isn't a crisp reliable $40/wk that you give like an API call to the store for a constant amount of the same food with $0 left. No, the amount varies up and down, as does the kind of food you get that week, as does the amount left over after all ordinary expenses. This leads to the conclusion that if your time frame expands beyond one week, saving is possible! Even poor people understand saving up, despite archetypes like the GP imagining this is unknown to them and that their particular proposal is the best course of action, or archetypes like yours imagining that it's somehow impossible for them. Oh, and a savings account is unnecessary.
Incidentally, the median US household is said by the BLS to be capable of saving $1k/mo after all ordinary expenses. For those who actually save, a savings account typically isn't the mechanism to do it. This leads to "funny" statistics pushed by news outlets on how a huge percentage of people, even HNers who have thousands or even millions saved up in mostly liquid assets, have no savings, because they're sampling either non-existent or non-useful-and-thus-empty savings accounts.
- heartbreak 5y agoAll good points. I was using GP’s $40/wk for the sake of argument, and “savings account” more as a figure of speech than to literally refer to a savings account (for the reasons you pointed out). I do contend that, for people who have such a small amount available for food every week, saving any amount of money (let alone $1k/mo) is extremely difficult. Life is a never ending barrage of unexpected financial hits, especially when you’re already living frugally.