You seem to be trying to make this into some kind of moralistic gotcha. But, well, I’m going to ignore that because it isn’t related to my point, which is that regardless of your financial status, making good financial decisions results in better outcomes than making bad financial decisions.
For example, suppose you are living on minimum wage, renting an apartment for 50% of your monthly income. But then, because you are a strawman in an internet argument, you decide to set the other half of your money on fire each month, and meet the remainder of your monthy expenses by accruing debt. I don’t think it should be controversial to say that this is a bad idea. Setting your money on fire and not setting it on fire result in two very different, very tangible outcomes which will come to fruition in not too long. Note that I am not saying that the “don’t set your money on fire” option is going to lead to fabulous riches and a Lambo. Success here could simply be keeping your head above water, or slowing your slide into debt while you try to figure something else out - which doesn’t sound very appealing! But it sounds a heck of a lot more appealing than accumulating endless debt, tanking your credit score, losing your ability to take on more debt, losing your apartment when you fall behind on rent, not being able to find a new apartment anymore because you now have terrible credit, and moving back in with your abusive parents who smell like cabbage. Yeah, you are deciding between bad and worse, but the obvious choice is “bad” and the obvious way to get there is “don’t set your money on fire.”
50% on rent. 40% on food and utilities. 15% on a cell phone. You’re already going into debt.
So no phone then. All you do is work, eat meagerly, and sleep. Your clothes are aging but you can’t replace them. You have no friends, but that’s ok you can’t afford to do things with them anyway. You pray inflation stays at zero and you never get sick.
At this point, you choose debt or suicide because this isn’t a life.
So… you’re on team “set half your money on fire” then…? Because if your point is “I’m so poor, pity me!”, then you should know that I won’t, because I don’t like being emotionally manipulated.
As for your “choice” - you are describing being poor in a developed nation. As a resident of a developed nation, you are already richer than about half the world’s population, and are richer than pretty much every human who ever lived more than 100 years ago. Given that all those people weren’t/aren’t offing themselves at an astonishing rate, we can conclude that your financial situation is not the cause of your suicidal ideation. As someone who’s been there before, I can tell you that it is probably more about social isolation. Sorry you aren’t feeling great - the solution is to move in with some friends and make dinner together. At the very least you’ll save money on rent, even if you still want to kill yourself.
I’m not asking you to pity these people. I’m asking you to recognize that we’ve set up a system where some portion of the population absolutely is destined to fail and there’s nothing they can realistically do about it.
For some portion of the population, “man up and tough it out” is not a reasonable answer.
And I’m not sure why you’re thinking this is about me. I’ve got friends and family and money and health. I also have a realistic view of reality and numbers. And the reality is, for a lot of people, these numbers don’t line up.
I’m asking you to recognize that we’ve set up a system
I explicitly addressed this in my original post when I said:
This doesn’t diminish the need to create policy-level solutions to address wages or housing affordability.
absolutely is destined to fail
My point is that “failure” is not a singular state. I have repeated this several times. If you are “destined to fail” then following good rules of personal finance is even more important to you than to someone who has some extra cash but is sad that they won’t be a homeowner. Every good financial descision that someone living with the budget you described makes is a decision that is keeping them housed and fed for longer. This is simple math.
I neither agree nor disagree with that statement, because I disagree with the underlying premise - that there is such a thing as a singular state of financial failure - which is my whole point.
What is your definition of “failure”? What happens to a person after they “fail”?
You can’t budget your way out of poverty. I hope you appreciate the life that lets you not know that.
You seem to be trying to make this into some kind of moralistic gotcha. But, well, I’m going to ignore that because it isn’t related to my point, which is that regardless of your financial status, making good financial decisions results in better outcomes than making bad financial decisions.
For example, suppose you are living on minimum wage, renting an apartment for 50% of your monthly income. But then, because you are a strawman in an internet argument, you decide to set the other half of your money on fire each month, and meet the remainder of your monthy expenses by accruing debt. I don’t think it should be controversial to say that this is a bad idea. Setting your money on fire and not setting it on fire result in two very different, very tangible outcomes which will come to fruition in not too long. Note that I am not saying that the “don’t set your money on fire” option is going to lead to fabulous riches and a Lambo. Success here could simply be keeping your head above water, or slowing your slide into debt while you try to figure something else out - which doesn’t sound very appealing! But it sounds a heck of a lot more appealing than accumulating endless debt, tanking your credit score, losing your ability to take on more debt, losing your apartment when you fall behind on rent, not being able to find a new apartment anymore because you now have terrible credit, and moving back in with your abusive parents who smell like cabbage. Yeah, you are deciding between bad and worse, but the obvious choice is “bad” and the obvious way to get there is “don’t set your money on fire.”
50% on rent. 40% on food and utilities. 15% on a cell phone. You’re already going into debt.
So no phone then. All you do is work, eat meagerly, and sleep. Your clothes are aging but you can’t replace them. You have no friends, but that’s ok you can’t afford to do things with them anyway. You pray inflation stays at zero and you never get sick.
At this point, you choose debt or suicide because this isn’t a life.
So… you’re on team “set half your money on fire” then…? Because if your point is “I’m so poor, pity me!”, then you should know that I won’t, because I don’t like being emotionally manipulated.
As for your “choice” - you are describing being poor in a developed nation. As a resident of a developed nation, you are already richer than about half the world’s population, and are richer than pretty much every human who ever lived more than 100 years ago. Given that all those people weren’t/aren’t offing themselves at an astonishing rate, we can conclude that your financial situation is not the cause of your suicidal ideation. As someone who’s been there before, I can tell you that it is probably more about social isolation. Sorry you aren’t feeling great - the solution is to move in with some friends and make dinner together. At the very least you’ll save money on rent, even if you still want to kill yourself.
I’m not asking you to pity these people. I’m asking you to recognize that we’ve set up a system where some portion of the population absolutely is destined to fail and there’s nothing they can realistically do about it.
For some portion of the population, “man up and tough it out” is not a reasonable answer.
And I’m not sure why you’re thinking this is about me. I’ve got friends and family and money and health. I also have a realistic view of reality and numbers. And the reality is, for a lot of people, these numbers don’t line up.
I explicitly addressed this in my original post when I said:
My point is that “failure” is not a singular state. I have repeated this several times. If you are “destined to fail” then following good rules of personal finance is even more important to you than to someone who has some extra cash but is sad that they won’t be a homeowner. Every good financial descision that someone living with the budget you described makes is a decision that is keeping them housed and fed for longer. This is simple math.
I think you’re still not getting my point.
Some people are positioned to fail and no amount of good behavior or savings will stop that.
Do you agree with that statement?
I neither agree nor disagree with that statement, because I disagree with the underlying premise - that there is such a thing as a singular state of financial failure - which is my whole point.
What is your definition of “failure”? What happens to a person after they “fail”?