Why is it hard for some privileged people to realize that saving is hard?

[Anonymous]

When I was broke I had extremely limited fixed expenses.

I also had no debt as could not afford or get a loan.

My car I bought $600 cash and registered in a state with no insurance requirement. I lived in a room with lots of roommates. No cable, phone etc. My salary was 19k a year and could go months to a year no paycheck. I did spend a ton on beer and women but that is not a luxury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't read through the whole thread because after a few pages I see you are getting alot of shade and shaming on this. Just want to say I agree with you. These people do not know what its like to be poor or live on a razors edge. Its very self righteous of them. Yes, there are people who are poor and make bad financial decisions. And yes, they could cut out some luxuries for sure. But cutting out a starbucks a couple times a week is not going to give you 6 months of living expenses. Get a grip people! Also, when you are that on the edge, you are often one step away from crisis and any savings you have get eaten up on a regular basis. ie. you manage to scrimp together $1000 in savings. Yay. Then you have a medical problem and need some testing done that's only partially covered by your insurance, your car breaks down or needs regular maintenance, etc. etc.

I agree with you. Privileged people can be completely tone deaf and simply have no frame of reference to understand. Not everyone can just go get a loan to cover their expenses like our supreme dumbass commerce secretary Wilbur Ross suggests

This sort of thinking right here is why people can't build emergency funds. No, cutting out Starbucks won't give you 6 months of emergency savings overnight, but keep doing it and it sure will. And you know what happens when you start consciously thinking about every $1-$2 expense like Starbucks? You end up cutting other little things here and there. And then over time, you have savings.

And then you have a medical emergency that cuts out that savings and guess what, you start over! You do the same thing you did before to scrimp that $1000 together until you need $1000 for the next emergency. But you don't never try to save to begin with because you might have that emergency one day that will use up the savings.

1000x this.

No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

I think Starbucks is a symbiolic example. Poor people are and remain low income through poor decision making. I know/knew several Asian families who came here with only a few thousand dollars not understanding English etc. They worked constantly, saved every penny not matter what it was. 20 years later they all own multiple properties, drive luxury cars, own large houses in prestigious suburbs.

Again, people are not becoming or remaining poor because they buy Starbucks.

I think you are confusing Millenial poor with actual poor.

People are confusing American poor with actually poor. The actual poor don't have cars to face emergence repairs or cable subscriptions to cut. They ride on public transport, as in on the roof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't read through the whole thread because after a few pages I see you are getting alot of shade and shaming on this. Just want to say I agree with you. These people do not know what its like to be poor or live on a razors edge. Its very self righteous of them. Yes, there are people who are poor and make bad financial decisions. And yes, they could cut out some luxuries for sure. But cutting out a starbucks a couple times a week is not going to give you 6 months of living expenses. Get a grip people! Also, when you are that on the edge, you are often one step away from crisis and any savings you have get eaten up on a regular basis. ie. you manage to scrimp together $1000 in savings. Yay. Then you have a medical problem and need some testing done that's only partially covered by your insurance, your car breaks down or needs regular maintenance, etc. etc.

I agree with you. Privileged people can be completely tone deaf and simply have no frame of reference to understand. Not everyone can just go get a loan to cover their expenses like our supreme dumbass commerce secretary Wilbur Ross suggests

This sort of thinking right here is why people can't build emergency funds. No, cutting out Starbucks won't give you 6 months of emergency savings overnight, but keep doing it and it sure will. And you know what happens when you start consciously thinking about every $1-$2 expense like Starbucks? You end up cutting other little things here and there. And then over time, you have savings.

And then you have a medical emergency that cuts out that savings and guess what, you start over! You do the same thing you did before to scrimp that $1000 together until you need $1000 for the next emergency. But you don't never try to save to begin with because you might have that emergency one day that will use up the savings.

1000x this.

No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

So you think it’s fine for poor people to have a Starbucks habit. Got it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't read through the whole thread because after a few pages I see you are getting alot of shade and shaming on this. Just want to say I agree with you. These people do not know what its like to be poor or live on a razors edge. Its very self righteous of them. Yes, there are people who are poor and make bad financial decisions. And yes, they could cut out some luxuries for sure. But cutting out a starbucks a couple times a week is not going to give you 6 months of living expenses. Get a grip people! Also, when you are that on the edge, you are often one step away from crisis and any savings you have get eaten up on a regular basis. ie. you manage to scrimp together $1000 in savings. Yay. Then you have a medical problem and need some testing done that's only partially covered by your insurance, your car breaks down or needs regular maintenance, etc. etc.

I agree with you. Privileged people can be completely tone deaf and simply have no frame of reference to understand. Not everyone can just go get a loan to cover their expenses like our supreme dumbass commerce secretary Wilbur Ross suggests

This sort of thinking right here is why people can't build emergency funds. No, cutting out Starbucks won't give you 6 months of emergency savings overnight, but keep doing it and it sure will. And you know what happens when you start consciously thinking about every $1-$2 expense like Starbucks? You end up cutting other little things here and there. And then over time, you have savings.

And then you have a medical emergency that cuts out that savings and guess what, you start over! You do the same thing you did before to scrimp that $1000 together until you need $1000 for the next emergency. But you don't never try to save to begin with because you might have that emergency one day that will use up the savings.

1000x this.

No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

I think Starbucks is a symbiolic example. Poor people are and remain low income through poor decision making. I know/knew several Asian families who came here with only a few thousand dollars not understanding English etc. They worked constantly, saved every penny not matter what it was. 20 years later they all own multiple properties, drive luxury cars, own large houses in prestigious suburbs.

Again, people are not becoming or remaining poor because they buy Starbucks.

I think you are confusing Millenial poor with actual poor.

People are confusing American poor with actually poor. The actual poor don't have cars to face emergence repairs or cable subscriptions to cut. They ride on public transport, as in on the roof

Many poor people in America don't have cars that need emergency repairs, either, because they can't afford the cars. And they ride on public transit, too, often from homes in inner-ring suburbs to jobs elsewhere in the suburbs on transit networks that are mostly designed to ferry people into urban centers. THAT's the kind of thing that keeps people poor: having to make a 2 hour commute each way on multiple buses for a job that doesn't pay you if you're not there on time and fires you if you're late once too often. Not a mythical Starbucks habit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't read through the whole thread because after a few pages I see you are getting alot of shade and shaming on this. Just want to say I agree with you. These people do not know what its like to be poor or live on a razors edge. Its very self righteous of them. Yes, there are people who are poor and make bad financial decisions. And yes, they could cut out some luxuries for sure. But cutting out a starbucks a couple times a week is not going to give you 6 months of living expenses. Get a grip people! Also, when you are that on the edge, you are often one step away from crisis and any savings you have get eaten up on a regular basis. ie. you manage to scrimp together $1000 in savings. Yay. Then you have a medical problem and need some testing done that's only partially covered by your insurance, your car breaks down or needs regular maintenance, etc. etc.

I agree with you. Privileged people can be completely tone deaf and simply have no frame of reference to understand. Not everyone can just go get a loan to cover their expenses like our supreme dumbass commerce secretary Wilbur Ross suggests

This sort of thinking right here is why people can't build emergency funds. No, cutting out Starbucks won't give you 6 months of emergency savings overnight, but keep doing it and it sure will. And you know what happens when you start consciously thinking about every $1-$2 expense like Starbucks? You end up cutting other little things here and there. And then over time, you have savings.

And then you have a medical emergency that cuts out that savings and guess what, you start over! You do the same thing you did before to scrimp that $1000 together until you need $1000 for the next emergency. But you don't never try to save to begin with because you might have that emergency one day that will use up the savings.

1000x this.

No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

I think Starbucks is a symbiolic example. Poor people are and remain low income through poor decision making. I know/knew several Asian families who came here with only a few thousand dollars not understanding English etc. They worked constantly, saved every penny not matter what it was. 20 years later they all own multiple properties, drive luxury cars, own large houses in prestigious suburbs.

Again, people are not becoming or remaining poor because they buy Starbucks.

I think you are confusing Millenial poor with actual poor.

People are confusing American poor with actually poor. The actual poor don't have cars to face emergence repairs or cable subscriptions to cut. They ride on public transport, as in on the roof

Many poor people in America don't have cars that need emergency repairs, either, because they can't afford the cars. And they ride on public transit, too, often from homes in inner-ring suburbs to jobs elsewhere in the suburbs on transit networks that are mostly designed to ferry people into urban centers. THAT's the kind of thing that keeps people poor: having to make a 2 hour commute each way on multiple buses for a job that doesn't pay you if you're not there on time and fires you if you're late once too often. Not a mythical Starbucks habit.

The Starbucks habit might be mythical, but buyhere pay here dealers aren't. $2000 a year payment for a $5000 car. The ones on the bus don't stay there forever. The ones who are too good for it do however

[Anonymous]

Many years ago, DH and I found ourselves in a situation of low pay and an employment situation where we were held hostage for a long period with minimal payment. There was a lot of shame involved with being so poor, especially if one had started from being a middle class person. We eventually came out of that situation and make decent money now. And while we are able to afford really privileged things now - house cleaners, vacations, eating out, kids having tutors and expensive activities etc, I have a good idea of my spendings (even the frivolous ones). I have three budget spreadsheet - one is my lavish lifestyle now (real spending), one is a little tightening of the belt and the last one is my austerity measure where everything superfluous and not needed for survival is cut down. For the money we earn, our COL is still quite low, though sometimes the expenditures can come in an avalanche and you may have multiple emergencies at one time. I cannot take money for granted after having been so poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only 2 percent of those who follow these three rules are in poverty:

1) Finish high school (at a minimum)
2) Get a full-time job
3) No marriage or children before age 21

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

Wow, I like this statistic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

So you think it’s fine for poor people to have a Starbucks habit. Got it?

Another poster added something really prescient - which is so much of poverty involves constant shaming and judgment. Who are you to judge whether or not someone “deserves” to have a Starbucks habit? Or choose to spend money on a particular self care item or even a car?

What this thread was about was about empathy. Why is it so hard for people to understand and empathize with those who have an uphill climb to saving. The jump to judge people for their choices, and to decide who “deserves” something or “deserves” empathy is a huge part of that problem. People who are less advantaged don’t need your approval. But there is no damn reason we should be shaming or showing a huge lack of empathy for those in different situations than ours.

Empathy for other human beings shouldn’t have to be “eaneed” or go only to those who “deserve” it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

So you think it’s fine for poor people to have a Starbucks habit. Got it?

Another poster added something really prescient - which is so much of poverty involves constant shaming and judgment. Who are you to judge whether or not someone “deserves” to have a Starbucks habit? Or choose to spend money on a particular self care item or even a car?

What this thread was about was about empathy. Why is it so hard for people to understand and empathize with those who have an uphill climb to saving. The jump to judge people for their choices, and to decide who “deserves” something or “deserves” empathy is a huge part of that problem. People who are less advantaged don’t need your approval. But there is no damn reason we should be shaming or showing a huge lack of empathy for those in different situations than ours.

Empathy for other human beings shouldn’t have to be “eaneed” or go only to those who “deserve” it.

The empathy doesn't have to be earned. But, the policy asking me to pay for it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

So you think it’s fine for poor people to have a Starbucks habit. Got it?

Another poster added something really prescient - which is so much of poverty involves constant shaming and judgment. Who are you to judge whether or not someone “deserves” to have a Starbucks habit? Or choose to spend money on a particular self care item or even a car?

What this thread was about was about empathy. Why is it so hard for people to understand and empathize with those who have an uphill climb to saving. The jump to judge people for their choices, and to decide who “deserves” something or “deserves” empathy is a huge part of that problem. People who are less advantaged don’t need your approval. But there is no damn reason we should be shaming or showing a huge lack of empathy for those in different situations than ours.

Empathy for other human beings shouldn’t have to be “eaneed” or go only to those who “deserve” it.

The empathy doesn't have to be earned. But, the policy asking me to pay for it does.

The rush to judgment of strangers based on stereotypes to hang on to what's yours, even though this thread isn't about trying to take it, does not reflect very well on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. You clearly have no understanding of what it means to be low income. It's not about Starbucks.

Can we at least agree that people tight on cash shouldn’t buy Starbucks? Or they “deserve” it? I’m honestly curious. We have a high HHI and I think Starbucks (and other yuppy type coffee places) are outrageously priced and I ONLY go if a friend expressly invites me to meet there. And I order a “tall” regular coffee and still internally roll my eyes at the ridiculousness of the place.

No, because your premise is wrong. Poverty is not due to Starbucks expenditures.

So you think it’s fine for poor people to have a Starbucks habit. Got it?

Another poster added something really prescient - which is so much of poverty involves constant shaming and judgment. Who are you to judge whether or not someone “deserves” to have a Starbucks habit? Or choose to spend money on a particular self care item or even a car?

What this thread was about was about empathy. Why is it so hard for people to understand and empathize with those who have an uphill climb to saving. The jump to judge people for their choices, and to decide who “deserves” something or “deserves” empathy is a huge part of that problem. People who are less advantaged don’t need your approval. But there is no damn reason we should be shaming or showing a huge lack of empathy for those in different situations than ours.

Empathy for other human beings shouldn’t have to be “eaneed” or go only to those who “deserve” it.

The empathy doesn't have to be earned. But, the policy asking me to pay for it does.

Oh, it does? What did you to do earn the policies that subsidize your mortgage (by making the interest tax-deductible), your retirement savings (by letting you put $19,000 a year into your 401k tax-free), your kids' college tuition (by letting you save tax-free in your 529) and your investments (by taxing long-term capital gains and dividend income at a lower rate than wage income)? Or maybe the only policies that have to be "earned" are the ones that help people who aren't as fortunate as you are? (Also, what policy is it that asks you to pay for people's Starbucks?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only 2 percent of those who follow these three rules are in poverty:

1) Finish high school (at a minimum)
2) Get a full-time job
3) No marriage or children before age 21

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

Wow, I like this statistic

I have read this before and it speaks volumes. It’s not that hard - finish high school, get a job, and don’t get married or pregnant too young. Most middle class teenagers know this without being explicitly told. How do we impart it to everyone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The modern redefining of luxuries as necessities makes it hard to see that saving is doable for many people who claim that they can’t save a dime (while typing away on their smartphones).

+1

One word: Starbucks.

Starbucks is not the reason people don't have much leftover after paying rent, school loans, car loans, and medical bills.

It can be if it's a daily fix. That's $200-$250 a month.

Just FYI, a fancy grande latte is less than $6, even at the priciest locations downtown. So, even if you go to Starbucks daily, it's about $180 a month. Not suggesting that that's a reasonable expense for someone struggling but the math was wrong.

Yep. I get a grande skinny cinnamon dolce latte every morning. It's $5, so $140/month. If I were truly living paycheck to paycheck I probably wouldn't do it, but that isn't the reason people aren't able to save in a macro sense.

This is the perfect illustration of the lack of understanding here. Will foregoing Starbucks allow someone to survive a layoff, or other really expensive life event? No. But, you're talking about more that $1600/year in fancy coffee. If you ask people who are in desperate financial straits whether $1600 in savings would make a difference in their lives, I'll bet you they would say yes.

Moreover, Starbucks, while a real thing, is also a metaphor for various other frivolities in life.

Finally, many people are conflating the real working poor, who don't get Starbucks every day, with the poor by choice. People who are stretched, and living paycheck to paycheck, because, even though they make a decent living, they spend every cent they make. Who *could* have savings, but *deserve* that starbucks every day, because life is hard. Who deserve to live alone, because they're 30 yo, and who wants roommates? Who don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend, and so need to go out a lot and spend money.

Please don't confuse by lack of sympathy for *those* people for lack of sympathy for the true poor/working poor. It's appalling that the minimum wage is so low, and health care is so expensive. But I know too many 20- and 30-somethings making decent money who spend it on nonsense to spend a lot of time worrying about them.

[Anonymous]

You can't expect empathy from people who believe that 300K is middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should reduce your expenses then because if that’s the case you’re only one emergency away from bankruptcy or total poverty. It’s simple math, people!

You seem to lack simple math skills if you cannot figure out that many people's salaries only cover rent, utilities, food, gas.

Don't be such an a**hat.