• AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      111
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, it’s not a myth, billionaires literally have enough financial freedom to live large for 100 lifetimes.

      The myth is that they’re willing to share their rigged casino gambling “speculative investment” derived wealth/winnings, because reminder: nobody can earn a billion dollars through honest labor.

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Depends on what you mean by state support.

          Cause a theoretical ancap hellscape would still have billionaires despite being stateless by definition.

          You need power and control to get that rich. The only way that happens today is by the state, but that doesn’t preclude other forms of violence and power.

          • sadreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You aint wrong but modern system of “capitalism” relies on state violence and money transfers from taxpayers to our “dear job creators”

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t need billions for most definitions of financial freedom. Unless your definition is spend whatever you want, never worry about running out of money, and not have a job, you really don’t need billions.

        • darthelmet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism requires most people to be dependent on selling their labor to capitalists at a rate less than it’s worth. No meaningful definition of financial freedom can exist for a majority of the population in a system that creates and supports billionaires.

          • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We could, it’s kind of the the Gene Roddenberry vision, use our burgeoning automation/robotics/AI to do the labor so that Humankind could pursue our passions for everyone’s benefit, but of course those technologies will be patented and used for the exclusive further profit of the non-laboring owner’s club at everyone else’s further expense, exploding our population of homeless peasants with nothing, and “our” government will continue to defend their ability to get away with it at gun point.

            It’s like so many things. Human kind should have been united in celebration when we split the atom and harnessed it’s awesome energy generation, a warm light for all mankind, instead our first monkey ass impulse was to use it to incinerate a rival monkey tribe.

            Humanity: Juuuust smart enough to be a belligerent threat to ourselves and others, yet too impulsive, short sighted, and stupid as a species to be anything more.

              • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It wasn’t a falsehood. It was stolen by Reagan and the owner class. Reagan gave away the store and shifted all societal power to the oligarchs, while corporate America, led by GE, shifted from the correct “customers first, employees (who were valued!) second, investors third” model to the “investors first, second, and only” rigged market profiteering dystopia we all suffer today.

                The citizen’s of happiest developed nations of the world, not our gold plated cesspool to be clear, as a rule get months off a year, in addition to innumerable social supports. It’s a proven lie that this is how it has to be.

                • MNByChoice@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  stolen by Reagan and the owner class. Reagan gave away the store and shifted all societal power to the oligarc

                  I hate to shoot this down, as I live the feeling. If one USA President enough to steal it for 40+ years, then we never really had it.

              • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Month long vacations? That’ll never work. Can you imagine if a developed country took several weeks off in the summer? No one could do that!

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Having magic machines that can make anything is the only way a communist utopia ever happens, so it’s not that amazing.

            • earthshatter@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You know what the sad part is? When you tell people that’s exactly what we should be doing, exploring space, etc, they get mad at you and demand you tell them how pursuing anything more meaningful than throwing shit at their enemies benefits them. How it pays their bills. How it pays their rent.

              That’s why we can never truly go anywhere.

        • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s why I said 100 lifetimes charitably. That’s 10 million from 1 billion, and even less than half of that is enough for a lifetime of responsible financial freedom.

            • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Billionaires have poured billions into life extension ventures, many of them believe they’ll be around to spend it themselves forever.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you drop the spending whatever you want, a few million should be sufficient. If you get a 5% annual return that’s $50,000 a year per million invested. $150-200k a year if you own your house is more than enough to not worry about having enough money. Plus there’s millions in the bank for any truly major expense.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            150-200k/year

            So the top 10% of income earners?

            The threshold is significantly lower since the vast majority of Americans do, in fact, retire.

            • earthshatter@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not gonna be true for much longer. Watch the Republicans plunder Social Security and Medicaid like they’ve been hankering after for decades.

        • MrGeekman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My definition of financial freedom is not being dependent on an employer. It’s being wealthy enough to be able to walk away from crappy jobs however long it takes to find a better one.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      financial freedom is a myth peddled by billionaires banks and investment brokers

    • Jumper775@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not true, it seems that way but it is a thing that non-billionaires have. It’s just that those who have such freedom choose to live and often work out of view of everyone else, so you never see them. It plays heavily into confirmation bias. That isn’t to say that the wealth distribution is off, everyone should be in their class including billionaires. They do exist.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I finally got a job that broke six figures.

    Housing boom made houses twice as expensive in five years. Monthly grocery bill doubled. Renting doubled. Cost of cars doubled. Every day expenses doubled.

    • dill@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I knew we were fucked when the same happened to me and I still can’t afford a home.

    • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a house that was bought back when I made around 35K in 2006 and they where giving out loans to everyone, so nothing great by any means. Had someone come by and ask to buy it earlier this year now that I’ve gotten to a decent career class job and I had to tell them no. Like, have you looked at the price of things lately? My payment is less than most single bedroom appartments these days, no way I’m giving that up to someone. It’s an ugly mess, but at least it’s my ugly mess.

      • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is essentially where I’m at, too, except bought in 2013 so probably slightly less good price.

        I can’t afford to do the fix up work on it properly, so it’s slowly crumbling, but I can’t really afford to move either because this place was on the low end when I bought it and hasn’t improved 😜. I literally can’t find housing for myself and 3 cats for the $550/mth I pay now. Even with my place being worth 3x what I paid for it, I’d end up in a worse or (at best) equivalent place for the same price. May as well just stick with the skeletons I know.

      • aircooledJenkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I tell those companies I’ll accept their offer if I have 3x the home’s value in my pocket at the end of the process.

        They don’t call back.

    • June@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yep, pulling in 110k this year after bonus at my job and I’m having to DoorDash to get just a bit of breathing room.

      $3350 mortgage eats more than half my take home. The rest goes to debt (took out a loan to fix a couple things on the house last year, and student loans coming back now), caring for my aging dog, food, bills, maxed 401k that I’m considering dropping for a while, and a little bit for free spending so I can go on a date or two or out with friends. Even with this mortgage payment this would have been easy on just my salary even 3 years ago (it was easy af with dual income at the time). But the way costs have increased are making me feel broke in a way I haven’t felt in a long-ass time. I always thought that if I could make it to six figures I’d be properly wealthy, but I’m not. I’m barely comfortable.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I doubt your maxing your 401k. I assume you mean the amount needed to get maximum match from your employer?

        • plutus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pre-tax 401k contribution limit is $22,500 in 2023. Plenty of people are able to contribute up to that limit.

          • HubertManne@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Must be nice. I maxed ira in the past but this is beyond me barring winning the lottery. Of course then I would likely not have a 401k.

    • kaitco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, you need to make 6 figures to just not be “poor” these days. Very annoying, considering how quickly things changed over the last decade.

    • ohlaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same here. Feels like I’m making the same, but my mortgage is huge now. Sucks.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its nice to see someone else mention the doubling. There are news things about gas being expensive but its cheap relative to everything else. People better be ready for eight bucks a gallone once it rights itself. Inflation would suggest 30% odd increase but for what you have to buy its 100% over 2020 prices.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t worry urban planners are making driving more difficult instead of mass transit easier. That way when gas prices double the entire lowest tier of the workforce won’t be able to afford to work. “No one wants to work anymore”

  • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Financial slavery. Slavery is a spectrum, not a binary condition. We’re slaves and everything we think we own is owned by banks and billionaires. We’re still pawns in a game of Kings.

      • Freeman@lemmy.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Financial independence isn’t necessarily never work again. Though some definitions include that.

        Even still, the article is talking about financial freedom, which even they recognize as a sliding scale

        Half of Americans describe “financial freedom” as being comfortable, but not necessarily rich, and 49.3% say it refers to meeting financial obligations and having some money left over each month. About 54.2% define it as living debt-free, and 46.2% believe it means never having to worry about money.

        I would be more in the latter part of saying it’s living mostly debt free. Or more depreciating debt free. Aka not house poor and able to manage finances.

        Unfortunately the US (at least, I can’t speak to other parts but it seems Europe can be grouped in here too) has abysmal financial education. So many people by into consumerism at such a deep level that they impoverish themselves in it. I’m not totally free of unnessecary spending, but I don’t buy into so badly it puts me in a bad place or in debt.

        We have debt. Mainly in our house but we still live below our means and always have. Places that loan you money aren’t looking out for you. And Society looks down on people that set boundaries or take the time to understand the full scope of a contract (such as a mortgage. I have seen it first hand).

        Better education and better cultural norms that didn’t prioritize “things” and consumerism would go a long way. And that starts with parents, not schools or teacher. It’s a parents job. We have a lot of lazy parents and it’s now a generational issue.

        Availability of credit wasn’t nearly as widespread in even the 80s but now we have a generation of people living in credit debt that haven’t taken the time to teach their kids either. Heck I’m partially at fault too (though my kids aren’t really of age to understand money quite yet)

        • Flambo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Better education and better cultural norms that didn’t prioritize “things” and consumerism would go a long way.

          So on the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, consumer spending is 70% of U.S. GDP. If consumer spending takes a hit, we’re all going to feel it.

          If this sounds awful it’s because it is. Our economy is not designed to benefit all, or even most.

          • Freeman@lemmy.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would agree. I think what is more at issue is the level of indebtedness. Like the % of people that can’t afford a 500 dollar emergency.

            And this isn’t because of inflation.

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-500-emergency-expense/

            Inflation of course has made it worse. But when covid hit and the government started just handing out money and suspending loan payments it became a real problem. Many of those people with the loans took that money and continued spending and acting like the loans were just going away.

            Even if the US just wiped all outstanding consumer debt off the table, it’s not going to fix the issue. Because it’s cultural and behavioral. And frankly it’s worrying in that I don’t really see a fiscal or policy that can make it better. People won’t chnage and it means we are heading for more pain (financially).

            Even anecdotally it’s shocking to me when people ask how we paid for xyz emergencies but still get into 1000 dollar a month car loans or buy iPhones on credit.

            It seems silly but it’s happened most of my adult life. And it’s never not been shocking.

      • McNasty@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Frederick Douglass, arguing for unity among black and white laborers in 1883, said that “experience teaches us that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other.”

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh shit well I sure hope people organize in the 19th century and stop the things that were actual oppression.

          Douglass was still supporting what I’m saying tho, which is that calling yourself a slave because you have a job is incorrect. Also Douglass would shit his pants if a wealthy white landowner complained about being “in slavery.”

      • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Black people were not the first or the last slaves on Earth.

        There are more slaves on the planet right now than ever existed in America.

        p.s. I’m not American

      • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No he has a point. You can argue about word choice and semantics but slavery and freedom are not all or nothing things.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          His point is based on a discussion in which a wealthy American calls himself a wage slave.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are many different kinds of slavery, chattel slavery is one of many. Indentured servitude was a much less extreme and dehumanizing form of slavery, serfdom was something in between. Slavery is an incredibly broad term that basically means someone is unable to choose their labor, as it belongs to someone else. That doesn’t necessarily mean the person does, like in chattel slavery, jist that their work does.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well it’s a good thing everyone in the US can choose their labor, and that no one making 6 figures is a slave.

  • Vaggumon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Really? Do they? That’s very interesting. Tell me, is the over half more like 99%?

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you knew exactly what idea they were saying. Agency, the ability to control your own life, varies. Clearly and obviously a regular person in the West has more agency than say a regular person in North Korea. It is not an one-off switch. The ever growing wealth inequality is making the population shift more and more to the slave side of things. That doesn’t mean that you are a slave it means your papa was less of a slave compared to you.

      This is why being a lolitarian makes you stupid. It bifurcates slavery and freedom. It defines force to be a specific term, that no one else uses, and declares victory in the game it is playing with itself

      • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s really disingenuous to compare US-only data to unrelated generalizations of other countries that function under different cultural and economic systems. But I feel like you already know that.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m 45 and I’ve more or less accepted that short of an unexpected and massive windfall, I will never be able to retire, much less experience “financial freedom.”

    • Biscuit303@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.

  • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What is actually the definition of “financial freedom”? Having (earned / gained) enough money, so that a person has no need to go to work anymore? If that’s the case, I would expect that number to be much, much lower than 50%.

    EDIT: sorry, I just read it in the article. If “financial freedom” just means to work and live more or less without having to worry about financial obligations and what will happen tomorrow, then less than 50% is a rather shocking figure.

    • Myro@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Agree. And anyone could quickly go one from side to the other. In need of a expensive surgery? Might lose your financial freedom. Bought an expensive house and lost your job? Goodbye as well.

        • Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Health insurance sucks. I’m all for universal health coverage with the opportunity to pay more for faster service for those who are well off.

          Just think - there are tens of thousands of insurance employees who’s job is to calculate risk and develop pricing algorithms such that the company makes money no matter what. There’s no product or value created for humanity. It’s just ensuring that some people who own significant portions of the business keep getting paid.

          They screw doctors and patients. Doctors get reimbursed whatever arbitrary predefined rates that were agreed upon during contract negotiations. That’s if insurance gives the green light for the patient to even get the procedure. Why does a middleman decide who gets medical care and how much the doctors should be paid? How is a patient supposed to choose a surgery team that’s all in network?

          I get what you’re saying, but fuck insurance. These companies are a parasite on healthcare, housing, and mobility.

          • TheProtagonist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, yes and no. It should probably be a state-run system or at least a heavily regulated system where the companies are limited in their profit making. No idea how an ideal system could look like. Here in Germany there is a two-fold system, which a generic public health insurance (with several companies offering those insurance services), where every employee pays a certain percentage of his salaries as insurance fee (actually the total fee is split 50/50 between employer and employee). Service is rather basic, but sufficient.

            And then there is the possibility to get a private health insurance contract, if your income is above a certain level, which interestingly is (for the most time) lower than that in the general public insurance, but service is much better (e.g. you usually get doctor appointments much faster if you are a “private patient”). The only downside is that you don’t know how much you will have to pay when you get old, and once you are out of the public insurance you can not go back (only if you income falls below the private insurance entry level, which is rather unlikely).

            It’s not ideal but it works for the most part and with some exceptions (like new teeth, where you have to pay a substantial part by yourself) you don’t have to be afraid of any health problems, operations or whatever, because that’s all covered. Those insurance companies are treated like public service companies and prices for medication and medical (doctor) services are subject to agreement between the government and the medical associations representing doctors, hospitals etc., but I guess those companies still make profits and the doctors have good earnings.

            I get your point, but even with a certain level of protection you’re probably still better off than with no protection at all. However, the system should also not be based on profits and shareholder value, that’s true.

  • Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would also venture to say that applies to 90% of us. “Over half” is a fucking laughable fake figure.

      • Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but it’s marketing jargon to make it seem like less of a deal. When someone says “over half” do you immediately assume they’re talking in the 90% range, or closer to 60%?

  • Overzeetop@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    49.3% say it refers to meeting financial obligations and having some money left over each month. About 54.2% define it as living debt-free, and 46.2% believe it means never having to worry about money.

    I’m going to ignore that pesky 100% thing for the moment. Apparently we can’t even agree on what “Financial Freedom” means. Defining the metric you’re polling seems pretty critical if you want a consistent or useful answer. “Over half” is still burying the lede, though - less than one in ten fall into their personal version of that 150% noted above. Aside from the “American families are financially fucked” though, I’m not sure there’s any hard data to extract from this.

    --

    “Peter don’t ya call me cause I just can’t go; I owe my soul to the company store.”

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t also forget that we’re talking about what people say about their own financial position - which may be different from what their financial position actually is. Self-reporting is never accurate, because people report what they feel or are aware of, which is different from objective facts, to a greater or lesser degree.

      Between letting individuals define the terms of the question they’re going to answer, and then self-reporting, this “study” goes beyond useless and into detrimental.

    • guyrocket@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, the definition is a real problem. While still interesting the survey is pretty screwed.

      I thought financial freedom was being independently wealthy. Idle rich. Apparently I was wrong, it means working class but with some “bonus” money. Maybe still struggling but struggling less than most working stiffs.

      How free can you be if you still have to work full time?

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a point in income where you have the choice, the choice to move, the choice to switch jobs, the choice to leave your partner, etc.

        That is freedom. A lot of Americans are just stuck exactly where they are.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s a good point. I make well into the 6-digits and the one reason I don’t believe that anyone under 7-digits will ever be “financially free” is because of the for-profit healthcare system. One bad accident or cancer and I’m fucked for a long time if not the rest of my life as is anyone that can’t just shrug off 5 to 6-digit bills.

      Now if I were somewhere that offered universal health care and I was making what I was, I’d consider myself to be financially free. So I guess I fall into the 46.2% category.

      • greenskye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same. I’m financially stable. Meaning I can hit a few bumps and I’ll be fine. But I don’t think it’s possible to be ’ financially free’ when at any time I could suddenly have hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt.

        I can roughly estimate potential pit falls with my home. And home insurance is reasonably reliable for catastrophic scenarios. Even if they aren’t, bankruptcy is still feasible. The same cannot be said about healthcare. Insurance plans are extremely opaque and while they claim to have terms such as ‘out of pocket maximum’ that should**** in theory limit your losses, there are endless stories about how little that holds up when put to the test.

        Proper healthcare coverage would be the single biggest impact on American stability. Nothing else is even close.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can add disability to this. If I can’t work I pretty sure im buggered even if for some reason we get universal healthcare (I guess being disabled, if you can navigate to the point of getting it, you would have medicaid but what comes in every month would not be adequate to stay where I live or such)

    • ivanafterall@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill, fifteen percent concentrated power of will, five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain, and a hundred percent reason to remember the name.”

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m now in a 2 income household with fewer kids as they grow up, and to us it feels more like we are close always, just no hope of ever actually getting there, if that makes sense. Always almost enough.

    Which is better than my previous experience but since it’s happening later in life, still wouldn’t expect to ever stop having to earn money by working. I have never expected to retire though, it would take - as someone else noted - a windfall, luck, not effort. Effort has taken us as far as it can.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Looking for a job is insanely depressing when you get to see just how many jobs-white collar, blue collar, fast food, whatever- all pay absolutely disgusting wages one person can’t live of off…