Having taken the point of this post as it was intended, we can also recognize that learning how to manage your money is in fact always a good thing. Will basic hygiene undo generations of economics? No, but we certainly shouldn’t NOT teach young people to manage their money.
Nobody on earth has suggested we stop teaching economic literacy. We should however stop pretending it is sufficient. We require systemic change.
There's a famous Agatha Christie quote where she mentions that when she was young, she never imagined she'd be rich enough to own an automobile or poor enough to not have servants in her house. At some point, the affordability of one shot way past the other.
In my lifetime, I've seen huge cost increases in housing, and huge cost decreases in most technological products. When I was a kid, the normal TV size was something like 20 inches, and cost more than a month's rent for a typical apartment. In 1990, the average rent was $447, according to this. I found a Sears catalog from 1989 with a 25 inch TV selling for $549, and a 20 inch TV for $318. It would be hard to convince someone from 1990 that one day the cheapest, shittiest apartments in the poorest neighborhoods would rent for more than a 60-inch TV per month. Or that the typical ambulance ride costs something like a month's salary of a factory worker.
That's the real problem with old people's sense of money. The human tendency is to assume that all products cost the same multiple of those products prices in their early adulthood, so the luxury products of their youth remain the luxury products of today. These old people are stuck in some kind of Agatha Christie style of cost comparison, without the self awareness, and thinking that someone who owns a cell phone should be able to afford to buy a single family detached house, or couldn't possibly be bankrupted by a single Emergency Room visit.
Please stop blaming “old people”. It’s a divide and conquer tactic. I have grown children that are struggling with housing costs, and I absolutely understand why. Because greedy wealthy people/corporations are buying up all the property. If “old people” are pulling the avocado toast argument—they’re probably wealthy. Young wealthy people use the same argument. Something to think about regarding TVs. They were expensive back in the day, but they lasted 30+ years. ✌️ ☮️
Please stop blaming “old people”.
I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm pointing out the mechanism that causes a portion of old people to be out of touch on these things. They rely on their own experiences to draw inferences that don't actually apply to others.
"That’s the real problem with old people’s sense of money”. That is blaming old people.
"Blame" means to attribute for some negative result. There's no assigning fault here, just an observation, and an explanation behind that observation.
If I said "Bob is a fucking idiot," that's not blaming Bob for anything.
So yeah, I stand by my explanation behind the observation in OP's screenshot: that people tend to draw on past experiences even when those experiences are no longer as relevant, or are even actively misleading. And that the phenomenon I describe (that not all prices inflate at the same rate or preserve the same ratios to each other) exacerbates the problem.
OK. I’m seeing “the real problem with old people”. So, de facto, there’s a problem with old people.
It is absolutely OK to assign accurate blame and this basic misunderstanding absolutely afflicts people who aren't rich. The kind of person who bought their house when it's cheap and thinks the $2000 they pay in property taxes per year are murderous whilst ignoring the fact that folks around them are paying $2000 a month in rent.
I don’t know where you live, but property taxes are sky rocketing as well. And, thanks to global warming, house insurance is also sky rocketing. A lot of people who own their home are facing difficulties. There are communities in British Columbia where insurance companies refuse to offer fire coverage. There are communities in British Columbia where insurance companies refuse to offer flood insurance. These same insurance companies used to. You know why they won’t now?? Because the Oligarchs own the insurance companies, and they know what’s coming.
I totally agree with you that this is true, but I think it’s more a problem with reactionary thinking than anything else. The way I see it, the type of thinking that leads to reactionary comments is individualistic solutions to social and economic problems because you’re not allowed to question affordability.
People of all ages pull this shit. I can’t count how many times some millennial on reddit made unwanted suggestions for a poor person’s budgeting or grocery purchases. It is obviously difficult for older folks to understand things they’re not experiencing, but I don’t think that’s the primary issue.
Ask any traitor lunatic under 40 what to do about high prices, they’ll tell you exactly.
I definitely see this a lot. Any time someone complains about the unaffordability of life you get a swarm of people prying into their personal details desperately trying to figure out how that person's situation is their own fault.
Exactly. I never want to hear from someone making >$300,000 that I should be eating lentils all week.
My mortgage is close to 1600 a month. Plus HOA fees on top of that.
I dont think rent being at that price range is always greedy landlords.
I think you're right. The problem is that salaries are not keeping up. It's been a chronic problem.
Look at what it would cost to rent a similar house in your area in terms of sq footage and location. Note a house not an apartment I shouldn't be surprised if its closer to $3500
I have the same mortgage and a property manager I talked to said my house would rent for $2300. Major American city.
We had to give up entirely on affording a house. There are ROOMS for rent at $1200 here. This used to be a low COL area until COVID. We had low infection rates so a ton of people moved here and we don't have the infrastructure to support them. We've been priced out of what living space we did have and since there's still the illusion it's cheap to live here, it's almost impossible to get a living wage.
I bought my house in 2014, $224k at 4% APR, my monthly payment including taxes is $1400/mo.
It's only been 11 years, inflation is up ~35% in that time, so buying the same house now should be ~$1900/mo. Actual price if I were to buy it now? ~$3500/mo. And wages have barely budged. No wonder young people entering the workforce can't buy houses anymore.
Interestingly, though, that huge run-up in price is also half the reason why people think they need to own homes. We need to stop looking to homes to be the “engine of wealth creation” or we’re only asking for more of this.
The other half of the equation, of course, is wanting to have a stable home that you can control. And that’s still as valid as ever.
But homeownership isn’t necessarily the best choice for everyone. It reduces your mobility and optionality and it carries some risks and hidden costs.
But as long as everyone looks at it as the gateway to wealth, and feels like everyone is getting a piece of that action except them, it will contribute to the continuation of hyperinflation.
This is exactly right. I don’t believe in property ownership anyway, but even if you do, it is still irrational to chase this from a social and economic planning model. Life should be affordable for everyone. Period.
You can't get there buying cars and phones you can't afford either.
The phone that you use every day, that is required to function in daily society, and is the NUMBER ONE priority when you're homeless, aside from maybe obtaining legal documentation?
That cell phone?
OMG, would people get off the friggin cell phone thing already. People buy all kinds of things they can't afford. Money management would help with that. That was my only point. But if we HAVE to talk cell phones then fine. High end phones are over $1k. I just bought one for $200. To a person with little money, yeah cell phones too.
As you type this, people in poverty who had their state-sponsored cheap telephones so they could get callbacks for work and take care of their families, are getting notified that the program has been canceled and they have to now somehow pay for their own phones on top of every other fee and expense that increases when you're poor.
It's also kind of hard to not pay for your car when you live in it. Speaking from experience.
That's truly terrible but I don't know what that has to do with money management, which is the only point I'm trying to make. I agree on the rest of all of this.
That argument is stupid, because usually people need a reason to save for. Now rent is so high that people can barely save, and houses are so expensive that even if they do and get a credit with their staggering student debt, they'll never be able to afford it.
So what do people do? they just enjoy the small things, because they know they'll never have the big ones.
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 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.
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”
A $60k car and a $1600 cell phone are NOT essential for life and I didn't just "nah, it is just that," the argument. You're just having reading comprehension problems.
Let's drop to your level. Are you stupid enough to believe that people don't buy things they can't afford? If you only have even $10 to your name and you need food, you go to the most economical grocery store you can get to and maximize your purchases. You don't walk into Starbucks and order a latte. The OP implied that because there is as larger economic problem at hand, money management isn't an issue. They are ALWAYS both an issue.
And yes I understand that the problem is that people have to manage $10 now instead of $1000. It was not my intention to minimalize that.
You invent a scenario, and applied that to all people who struggle then? Context be dammed? Damn, sounds like a bad take.
The OP context is “older generations say that things are easy, when they had it easy. But here is an example that shows that things are not equal by a long shot.
Then you show up with a ‘if people would just stop eating avocado toast, they would have it just as easy’ ignoring the message in the OP and the systemic issues that not only make owning both your stated items a necessary component of life, but makes everything much more expensive.
A stupid take. Do struggling people own $1300 phones or expensive cars? Maybe there are some but not a lot. You fucking just dammed everyone struggling over just the possibility, inventing a character flaw on an entire class of people.
A very, very stupid take.
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.
Ok. Troll go ahead and keep believing what you want. You will always be right.
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.
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."
The highest priced iPhone, all max specs, is $1600.
If you get a new one every year, and trade in the previous year's, you'll probably get around $600 trade in value. So we're talking $1000/year for the highest priced phone.
On a monthly basis, we're talking $83/month. That's like a rounding error on rent, utilities, and food, much less transportation and health care.
And, more realistically, people are buying $800 phones once every 2 years, maybe seeing something like a $600 net expense spread over 24 months, for $25/month.
Phones are like the one thing that are cheaper in 2025 than in 1985.
Nice strawman you got there, goes well with all the avocado toast I buy instead of using it for a mortgage payment.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
