It’s not stupid, you’ve just stupidly misinterpreted it.
I believe you’ve mistakenly interpreted it to mean that I disagree with the premise that people have been priced out of the things we’ve come to believe are the standard of living now. That’s not what I was objecting to.
My point is that money should ALWAYS be managed. If you have no money, then, well I guess it manages itself. But if you have very little money, you shouldn’t be buying s $60k car you can’t afford. You buy a $3k car you can. Saying, I can’t afford a house so I’m going to go into massive amounts of debt to buy a car to make up for it, is the REASON you need to manage money.
The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory:
“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.”
Your take only gets stupider the more you try to explain it.
My point is that money should ALWAYS be managed.
Is that what you think people are talking about in here? money management?
You are truly too dense for any of this. Fortunately for you, you probably have never been touched by actual hardship and I hope that continues for you. The rest of us have had to deal with the very worst our nation can throw at us.
you just avocado toast even harder. Now you not only over generalized people, and willfully ignore the cause of the problem.
You then turn items that are essential to life in society into irresponsible luxuries. If you can’t afford to rent there is no such thing as an affordable phone/car.
The point of the post is that it’s not merely impulsive spending and you went, “nah, it is just that”
The Ratio says it’s actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can’t afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it’s a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility.
There is no such thing as a $3k car, those days are gone. If it’s going to be something that is expected to start and drive every day without major repairs that are overdue, you need to spend closer to $10k.
I know this because I recently bought my sons some used cars. Used 2006 Volvo was $6k in about as good of condition it could be for the age and miles. Still needed a bunch of little things that quickly added up. New tires ($800), PCV breather system ($120 did myself), new ignition coils ($200, did myself), brakes ($80, did myself), etc. If I wasn’t doing my own work, it would have been 3x the cost.
I also bought a 2013, nearly identical car to the 06. It needs far less, put tires on it, still has an evaporative emissions leak causing a check engine light. Not going to fix that.
I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don’t run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down.
$10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days.
Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn’t mean other people aren’t struggling to find an affordable used car now.
It’s not stupid, you’ve just stupidly misinterpreted it.
I believe you’ve mistakenly interpreted it to mean that I disagree with the premise that people have been priced out of the things we’ve come to believe are the standard of living now. That’s not what I was objecting to.
My point is that money should ALWAYS be managed. If you have no money, then, well I guess it manages itself. But if you have very little money, you shouldn’t be buying s $60k car you can’t afford. You buy a $3k car you can. Saying, I can’t afford a house so I’m going to go into massive amounts of debt to buy a car to make up for it, is the REASON you need to manage money.
The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, often called simply the boots theory: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.”
Your take only gets stupider the more you try to explain it.
Is that what you think people are talking about in here? money management?
You are truly too dense for any of this. Fortunately for you, you probably have never been touched by actual hardship and I hope that continues for you. The rest of us have had to deal with the very worst our nation can throw at us.
No, your take is very stupid
you just avocado toast even harder. Now you not only over generalized people, and willfully ignore the cause of the problem.
You then turn items that are essential to life in society into irresponsible luxuries. If you can’t afford to rent there is no such thing as an affordable phone/car.
The point of the post is that it’s not merely impulsive spending and you went, “nah, it is just that”
The Ratio says it’s actually pretty stupid. The percentage of people who can’t afford a home purely because they bought a $60k car is going to be absolutely minuscule, but it’s a great dog whistle for trying to lay the blame at the feet of personal responsibility.
It’s a whole lot more than you think.
It’s a whole lot less than you think.
No, it’s not. It’s not measured in the decimals of percentages, so it’s significant.
There is no such thing as a $3k car, those days are gone. If it’s going to be something that is expected to start and drive every day without major repairs that are overdue, you need to spend closer to $10k.
I know this because I recently bought my sons some used cars. Used 2006 Volvo was $6k in about as good of condition it could be for the age and miles. Still needed a bunch of little things that quickly added up. New tires ($800), PCV breather system ($120 did myself), new ignition coils ($200, did myself), brakes ($80, did myself), etc. If I wasn’t doing my own work, it would have been 3x the cost.
I also bought a 2013, nearly identical car to the 06. It needs far less, put tires on it, still has an evaporative emissions leak causing a check engine light. Not going to fix that.
I buy $1k cars sometimes, but they usually don’t run. A $3k car will be usable if you know how to turn wrenches, have space to work, and own multiple other cars for when it breaks down.
$10k barely buys a reliable car in most markets these days.
Yes there is …
My 2009 honda fit cost me 5k 3 years ago and has needed no repairs at all… You can go lower pretty easily…
Used car markets are highly localized markets and depending on demand in the area can fluctuate wildly, just because you got a steal on a 14 year old car 3 years ago doesn’t mean other people aren’t struggling to find an affordable used car now.