• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    paying for things they don’t need

    What you mean by ‘don’t need’ is ‘don’t need as long as they don’t want to have a slightly better level of life quality than if they were dirt poor.’

    You don’t literally need things like Netflix or fast food, but they make your life more tolerable right now so that you don’t die of the endless stress and misery.

    Sure, there are ways some people can cut expenses. There are also ways people could cut expenses, but at the expense of their own basic mental health.

    • fadedmaster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not having Netflix and the like does not make one dirt poor. That is such an entitled view to have. Literally first world problems if your mental health can’t handle not having the latest entertainment. Go to a library for goodness sakes.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I didn’t say they were. Please re-read what I wrote:

        What you mean by ‘don’t need’ is ‘don’t need as long as they don’t want to have a slightly better level of life quality than if they were dirt poor.

        Yes, you can go to a library. I love libraries. My wife is a librarian. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people shouldn’t spend $7 a month for a lowest tier Netflix account just to make their lives a little better. Maybe Netflix wouldn’t make your life better. Someone with kids who wants them to be able to watch Teletubbies or Peppa Pig whenever they want, that makes both the parents’ lives and the kids’ lives better.

        You are doing something no different from the “stop eating so much avocado toast” guy. Maybe not having avocado toast is a first world problem, but those people don’t live in a third world country. So why should they live like they do?

        I was super poor in the 1990s. I still bought CDs and DVDs because they made my life better so I wasn’t unhappy all the time. Sure, I could have gotten all of my music and movies from the library. On the other hand, I couldn’t have listened to the music I liked any time I wanted. Could I have instead saved that money for an emergency or for retirement? Sure I could have. It would have made my life worse and, yes, been damaging to my mental health. I’m not sure why you think libraries existing cure any mental health issues brought upon by not being able to afford to have a better quality of life in a first world country.

        • fadedmaster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m not saying Netflix and fast food are keeping people poor like that guy about avocado toast.

          I’m saying that if you can’t afford an emergency, that’s an emergency itself.

          Buying fast food and Netflix (and all the other things that go with that) instead of saving up so you can afford an emergency is irresponsible.

          Not being able to afford Netflix and/or fast food isn’t being “slightly better quality of life than if they were dirt poor.” I may not have been dirt poor. But I was buy expired milk and bread to freeze, can’t afford minutes for my flip phone while my friends have smart phones, poor. And my quality of life wasn’t “slightly better” than “dirt poor.” I had a furnished apartment, a color TV, and was able to borrow videos from the library for entertainment.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            And I’m saying not spending $15-$30 a month on things that make your quality of life better is not enough to cover any emergency you need to save cash for.

            Not having running water is also a first world problem. I assume you think people want running water.

            As for a flip phone, do you think anyone can get by in the modern world with a flip phone unless they are working some incredibly shitty job? You were poor when things were cheaper. The fact that you mentioned a color TV alone shows that this was a long time ago now that all TVs are color TVs.

            This is no different from “I could afford college when I went without taking out any loans.”

            • fadedmaster
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It was the mid 2000’s. And people spend a lot more than $15-30/month on fast food and streaming services. For the people whose finances I’ve seen, it’s usually closer to 30% of their monthly income that goes to pure wants.

              Also, someone can absolutely survive in today’s world without a smart phone. It definitely makes things easier to have one though. Not really comparable to today anyway. You can get a basic smartphone for free nowadays. Couldn’t do that back in the 2000’s. The equivalent today is getting a flagship versus a cheapy phone.

              I agree that water is a need. I’m talking strictly fast food, eating out, and things like Netflix, Spotify, etc.

              This the second time you’ve put words in my mouth. I may have misunderstood what you said initially. But first you’re saying I’m like that avocado toast guy (when I’m not saying people can solve their poverty), and now you’re saying I’m a college was cheap for me guy.

              Costs are higher than they have ever been and that’s why it’s even more important these days to control your spending. Costs are high. Wages haven’t kept up. It’s the sucky reality of the world we live in and telling people to keep spending their money irresponsibly in the name of comfort is just going to damn them to worse conditions as they go into debt when real problems arise and that debt puts them in even worse conditions where now they absolutely cannot afford their true bottom of the barrel needs without more debt.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                It was the mid 2000’s. And people spend a lot more than $15-30/month on fast food and streaming services. For the people whose finances I’ve seen, it’s usually closer to 30% of their monthly income that goes to pure wants.

                And yet you made a general statement about poor people saying that none of them should spend the $7.99 a month for the lowest tier Netflix service because that $7.99 could go into their emergency fund instead.

                • fadedmaster
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  We’re talking in circles. You think I only mentioned Netflix. I didn’t. I also said fast food. You also think I said poor people. I didn’t. My suggestion is for everyone.

                  If you can’t afford luxury items (and I include fast food and streaming services in that category) then you shouldn’t spend your money on them.

                  I would no sooner suggest someone to purchase Netflix over feeding themselves and their family. And that’s what you could end up having to spend your emergency fund on if you lose your job. But you place these luxuries on the same tier as necessities and that’s just simply irresponsible.

                  Go ahead and tell all your friends and family, “Don’t worry, I know money is tight, but you shouldn’t save for future emergencies by cutting corners today. I think you should give that money to McDonald’s and Netflix. They clearly need it more than you do. I mean, you can always just put it on your credit card and pay 30% interest!”

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    So everyone should not pay $7.99 a month plus maybe $20 for fast food to because then they’ll have an emergency fund? And without that per month you’ll be able to afford to feed your family? That’s nonsense. Even if it were $50 a month, that would be nonsense.

                    People are entitled to live decent lives where they aren’t miserable all the time. I have no idea why you think they aren’t.