7 ms·

people can get ahead with 30k salaries or never get ahead with 500K salaries. Getting ahead has more to do with life style choices than salaries on an absolute

people can get ahead with 30k salaries or never get ahead with 500K salaries. Getting ahead has more to do with life style choices than salaries on an absolute number. How many people who "can't get ahead" have $1000 iPhones with $100/yr plans? How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? How many people choose "luxury apartments"? You can easily outspend your salary of any size, then complain you can't get ahead?

alfalfasprout 3y ago
$100/year plans? Even a modest phone plan is going to be much more than that. And that $1000 iphone isn't purchased every year. A $300/400 car payment? You do realize most new cars are well over $20k if not $30k now? So what, folks should continuously strive for poverty and we're ok with that?
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Their numbers are off, but their overall point is solid: Many people who complain about how expensive everything is are spending money objectively pretty recklessly. They can't get ahead because they also cannot sacrifice.
  - alfalfasprout 3y ago
    It's a false equivalency. Effective discretionary income for the vast majority of people has shrunk significantly due to how expensive housing has become. Yeah, people can sacrifice but folks are sacrificing MUCH more now than they've had to in the last 30+ years.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      It’s pretty much a textbook example of why Adam Smith (of all people) hated landlords and saw them as a parasitic drag on market economies. We’ve allowed people speculating on real estate to wildly distort every aspect of our economy to the point that it’s destroying actually productive sectors.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The speculation is mostly irrelevant and wouldn't even be happening if the expectation wasn't that the cost of housing would rise faster than the overall market. The real problem is laws that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to build new housing, which constrains supply. The speculators are going to lose their shirts when the unsustainability of housing costs growing faster than wages forces a response, and they're going to deserve to.
        bugglebeetle 3y ago
        You have the causality backwards here. Speculators pay politicians to enact laws that preserve the value of their investments, which results in the shortages. Given that most of the political class are also real estate speculators, I wouldn’t bet on them losing their shirts any time soon. They’ll let many more people die on the streets and sic cops on them before they’ll cave to popular pressure.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The speculators people are referring to are investment funds, which are a relatively recent development. The original source of these laws was ordinary homeowners who bought a home to live in but then enacted local regulations to raise housing prices now that they own one. Right now housing costs are high because the market is gridlocked. Existing owners can't sell because they can't buy, because the interest rate on the new mortgage would be much higher than their existing one. No inventory on the market keeps prices high. But it also promotes construction and promotes political change to enable construction, because both the buyer and the gridlocked seller want something to change. Then some time passes and the combination of new construction and the low interest loans deterring sales getting paid off and reticent sellers being forced to move because they can't hold out any longer brings inventory back to the market. Which at prevailing interest rates ordinary buyers can't pay today's prices for, so prices go down and speculators lose. The theory is that speculators with political power will prevent this and keep prices going up because they historically have, but that is unsustainable because then people can't afford housing and people owning housing is what creates the political demand for high housing prices. As soon as it starts to shift to being owned by non-occupants, local voters have no interest in raising the value of their landlord's investment and the laws change.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I mean, if we're bringing in phone and car payments, it's hard to call it "objective". Remember that it's expensive to be poor. Is it cheaper to buy a junker $3500 used car over leasing a $20k car? Yes. (and for the BOTD let's assume both are in good condition and not too driven). Can a poor person afford a $3500 bulk payment over paying some horrible interest rate $300 minimum payment plan? Unfortunately, no. If they are also in an area with horrible public transportation, then you see how this ends. They can't sacrifice what they don't have.
- abfan1127 3y ago
  $100/yr was a typo. $100/month. Drive used cars. Pay cash for them. Save up, and upgrade. You don't NEED a new car.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >Pay cash for them what cash? That's the issue here. It's already been established that a good half of american's are living paycheck to paycheck. I assure you most aren't rocking new cars nor iphone 15's and still struggle.
    - abfan1127 3y ago
      I assure you that many of them living pay check to pay check do so because of large car payments, $100/month phone plans, and other recurring fees that add up to quite a bit. Death by a thousand financial cuts is the American way.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        Well we're at an impasse of anecdotes here. I don't know what to stay.
cxr 3y ago
> How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? How many people choose "luxury apartments"? Do you have answers for any of those questions? The general tone of your comment suggests that you can speak with some degree of confidence about what those numbers are. (And do you have a response for those who are impacted by the problem described but aren't "guilty" of falling into any of the categories you identify? E.g., what is your prescription to the person who isn't buying new iPhones and unreasonably priced cars, and is not prone to generally reckless[1] spending? It's easy to point to the low-hanging fruit that defies your adversary's position. What about the rest of the tree?) 1. Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25467900#25468799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25467900#25468799>
- abfan1127 3y ago
  I do have answers, but they aren't comfortable or fashionable. I only have anecdotal experience, but all people I've met who complain they can't afford things are well into the category I describe. Those impacted by the problem who are not guilty of falling into the category certainly do exist. Solutions their problems are tougher and have longer time lines.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
Yeah, I agree it's all about lifestyle choices. How many people who "can't get ahead" stay in their own city all year long to avoid paying for traveling. How many eat out for most meals instead of cooking all their meals. How many eat multiple meals per day instead of saving money by eating less. How many pay rents or expensive mortgages instead of using a PO box as their residence and living in a tent to save money. There's no problem with affordability, let's point the finger at people who have relatively modest desires and point out that it's "lifestyle creep" /s
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>How many people who "can't get ahead" have $1000 iPhones with $100/yr plans? How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? none of the people I know, that's for sure >How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? the ones with kids, unfortunately.
jen20 3y ago
Why the fuck should people (especially the young) compromise when wealth has been systematically stolen by boomers, who then insist that the young must subsidise their lifestyle via pensions? Posts like yours are the kind of thing that put even people who have been members of conservative parties off capitalism altogether.

alfalfasprout 3y ago

$100/year plans? Even a modest phone plan is going to be much more than that. And that $1000 iphone isn't purchased every year. A $300/400 car payment? You do realize most new cars are well over $20k if not $30k now? So what, folks should continuously strive for poverty and we're ok with that?

Workaccount2 3y ago
Their numbers are off, but their overall point is solid: Many people who complain about how expensive everything is are spending money objectively pretty recklessly. They can't get ahead because they also cannot sacrifice.
- alfalfasprout 3y ago
  It's a false equivalency. Effective discretionary income for the vast majority of people has shrunk significantly due to how expensive housing has become. Yeah, people can sacrifice but folks are sacrificing MUCH more now than they've had to in the last 30+ years.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    It’s pretty much a textbook example of why Adam Smith (of all people) hated landlords and saw them as a parasitic drag on market economies. We’ve allowed people speculating on real estate to wildly distort every aspect of our economy to the point that it’s destroying actually productive sectors.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The speculation is mostly irrelevant and wouldn't even be happening if the expectation wasn't that the cost of housing would rise faster than the overall market. The real problem is laws that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to build new housing, which constrains supply. The speculators are going to lose their shirts when the unsustainability of housing costs growing faster than wages forces a response, and they're going to deserve to.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        You have the causality backwards here. Speculators pay politicians to enact laws that preserve the value of their investments, which results in the shortages. Given that most of the political class are also real estate speculators, I wouldn’t bet on them losing their shirts any time soon. They’ll let many more people die on the streets and sic cops on them before they’ll cave to popular pressure.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The speculators people are referring to are investment funds, which are a relatively recent development. The original source of these laws was ordinary homeowners who bought a home to live in but then enacted local regulations to raise housing prices now that they own one. Right now housing costs are high because the market is gridlocked. Existing owners can't sell because they can't buy, because the interest rate on the new mortgage would be much higher than their existing one. No inventory on the market keeps prices high. But it also promotes construction and promotes political change to enable construction, because both the buyer and the gridlocked seller want something to change. Then some time passes and the combination of new construction and the low interest loans deterring sales getting paid off and reticent sellers being forced to move because they can't hold out any longer brings inventory back to the market. Which at prevailing interest rates ordinary buyers can't pay today's prices for, so prices go down and speculators lose. The theory is that speculators with political power will prevent this and keep prices going up because they historically have, but that is unsustainable because then people can't afford housing and people owning housing is what creates the political demand for high housing prices. As soon as it starts to shift to being owned by non-occupants, local voters have no interest in raising the value of their landlord's investment and the laws change.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I mean, if we're bringing in phone and car payments, it's hard to call it "objective". Remember that it's expensive to be poor. Is it cheaper to buy a junker $3500 used car over leasing a $20k car? Yes. (and for the BOTD let's assume both are in good condition and not too driven). Can a poor person afford a $3500 bulk payment over paying some horrible interest rate $300 minimum payment plan? Unfortunately, no. If they are also in an area with horrible public transportation, then you see how this ends. They can't sacrifice what they don't have.
abfan1127 3y ago
$100/yr was a typo. $100/month. Drive used cars. Pay cash for them. Save up, and upgrade. You don't NEED a new car.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Pay cash for them what cash? That's the issue here. It's already been established that a good half of american's are living paycheck to paycheck. I assure you most aren't rocking new cars nor iphone 15's and still struggle.
  - abfan1127 3y ago
    I assure you that many of them living pay check to pay check do so because of large car payments, $100/month phone plans, and other recurring fees that add up to quite a bit. Death by a thousand financial cuts is the American way.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Well we're at an impasse of anecdotes here. I don't know what to stay.

cxr 3y ago

> How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? How many people choose "luxury apartments"? Do you have answers for any of those questions? The general tone of your comment suggests that you can speak with some degree of confidence about what those numbers are. (And do you have a response for those who are impacted by the problem described but aren't "guilty" of falling into any of the categories you identify? E.g., what is your prescription to the person who isn't buying new iPhones and unreasonably priced cars, and is not prone to generally reckless[1] spending? It's easy to point to the low-hanging fruit that defies your adversary's position. What about the rest of the tree?) 1. Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25467900#25468799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25467900#25468799>

abfan1127 3y ago
I do have answers, but they aren't comfortable or fashionable. I only have anecdotal experience, but all people I've met who complain they can't afford things are well into the category I describe. Those impacted by the problem who are not guilty of falling into the category certainly do exist. Solutions their problems are tougher and have longer time lines.

pcthrowaway 3y ago

Yeah, I agree it's all about lifestyle choices. How many people who "can't get ahead" stay in their own city all year long to avoid paying for traveling. How many eat out for most meals instead of cooking all their meals. How many eat multiple meals per day instead of saving money by eating less. How many pay rents or expensive mortgages instead of using a PO box as their residence and living in a tent to save money. There's no problem with affordability, let's point the finger at people who have relatively modest desires and point out that it's "lifestyle creep" /s

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>How many people who "can't get ahead" have $1000 iPhones with $100/yr plans? How many people who "can't get ahead" have $300-$400 car payments? none of the people I know, that's for sure >How many people who "can't get ahead" live alone in an apartment rather than have roommates? the ones with kids, unfortunately.

jen20 3y ago

Why the fuck should people (especially the young) compromise when wealth has been systematically stolen by boomers, who then insist that the young must subsidise their lifestyle via pensions? Posts like yours are the kind of thing that put even people who have been members of conservative parties off capitalism altogether.