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”?
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”?