8 ms·

Why would someone making a "combined 120k a year" even own a Mercedes in the first place? That's hardly enough money to waste on a luxury car.

chiph 12y ago
The husband bought it before they got married. And it was paid-for. My concern (prior Mercedes owner here) would be the cost of repairs, but it sounds like they got lucky.
bradleysmith 12y ago
he made enough previously to buy it. He inherited some money previously and purchased that. He made a bad financial decision, and bought a car outside his means. Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it. As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.
- exstudent 12y ago
  Indeed. All the more reason not to buy one unless you're in rock solid financial condition (even then...). I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.
  - bradleysmith 12y ago
    I understand. I share your feeling quite a bit. Upvoted you for clear and friendly discussion on a subject that generally evokes a lot of emotion. I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset). I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible). I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did. At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help. That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy. My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
    - exstudent 12y ago
      Excellent response. Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant. In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable. From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday. At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer. In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
      - bradleysmith 12y ago
        I agree that this narrative is a harbinger of very troubled times for our country. I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made. Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change. The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn. an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
nilkn 12y ago
A low-end Mercedes is not much more than a new Honda Accord. It probably wasn't the greatest decision, but it also probably wasn't as irresponsible as you are trying to make it sound. If you think someone spending $30k on a car with a $120k income is bad, you probably don't want to hear about the folks buying those cars while making half that amount (or worse, leasing them). Besides, they were pretty conservative with their home purchase. A $250k house on a $120k income is way more conservative than what a lot of people do these days. Just by virtue of the home price, I'd argue they were doing better than the typical Bay Area programmer, who might make $120k but face home prices 5-15 times their income.
- exstudent 12y ago
  Well, yeah I do think spending 30k on a car when you make 120k is insane. The house price was almost reasonable given their income though.
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    He owned it outright, from before they even met.
    - exstudent 12y ago
      The whole point is that somewhere along the way of being rich enough to buy it (if that was ever truly the case) to being poor enough to need food stamps, they should have sold it. Being "hard" to sell isn't an excuse. Real poor people sell any asset they can get their hands on.
      - Jtsummers 12y ago
        I didn't make the hard to sell argument, so don't put that on me. I'm making the "it was a reliable asset, and apparently a valuable one as it turned out, so why sell it" argument.
        exstudent 12y ago

chiph 12y ago

The husband bought it before they got married. And it was paid-for. My concern (prior Mercedes owner here) would be the cost of repairs, but it sounds like they got lucky.

bradleysmith 12y ago

he made enough previously to buy it. He inherited some money previously and purchased that. He made a bad financial decision, and bought a car outside his means. Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it. As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.

exstudent 12y ago
Indeed. All the more reason not to buy one unless you're in rock solid financial condition (even then...). I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.
- bradleysmith 12y ago
  I understand. I share your feeling quite a bit. Upvoted you for clear and friendly discussion on a subject that generally evokes a lot of emotion. I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset). I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible). I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did. At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help. That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy. My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
  - exstudent 12y ago
    Excellent response. Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant. In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable. From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday. At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer. In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
    - bradleysmith 12y ago
      I agree that this narrative is a harbinger of very troubled times for our country. I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made. Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change. The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn. an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...

nilkn 12y ago

A low-end Mercedes is not much more than a new Honda Accord. It probably wasn't the greatest decision, but it also probably wasn't as irresponsible as you are trying to make it sound. If you think someone spending $30k on a car with a $120k income is bad, you probably don't want to hear about the folks buying those cars while making half that amount (or worse, leasing them). Besides, they were pretty conservative with their home purchase. A $250k house on a $120k income is way more conservative than what a lot of people do these days. Just by virtue of the home price, I'd argue they were doing better than the typical Bay Area programmer, who might make $120k but face home prices 5-15 times their income.

exstudent 12y ago
Well, yeah I do think spending 30k on a car when you make 120k is insane. The house price was almost reasonable given their income though.
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  He owned it outright, from before they even met.
  - exstudent 12y ago
    The whole point is that somewhere along the way of being rich enough to buy it (if that was ever truly the case) to being poor enough to need food stamps, they should have sold it. Being "hard" to sell isn't an excuse. Real poor people sell any asset they can get their hands on.
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      I didn't make the hard to sell argument, so don't put that on me. I'm making the "it was a reliable asset, and apparently a valuable one as it turned out, so why sell it" argument.
      - exstudent 12y ago