WHy do the fiscally irresponsible assume that those that are responsible with money... (rent, vehicle)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by daddiesgirl

I agree 100%. People who aren't as social tend to spend way less - no need to keep up with the Joneses, no after work socializing and no dining out to meet up with friends are weekend party nights with the guys or gals.

I've known a few friends like that who don't spend and are very careful with their money, then hit 40-45 and realize they haven't done much and go on a spending spree, buying up hot sports cars and taking extended vacations. But that is the goal I guess. Different people enjoy different things. Whether you spend it every week with no savings whatsoever, or you save it all up just to go out in one bang. How anyone uses their money is their business, but the thing that matters most is how responsible we are for our loved ones. You can't be a single mom and continue partying and spending every dollar from your paycheck. Your kid needs college tuition in a few years. But who are we to judge?

You makes some good points here, but I do have one point of disagreement. I think being responsible with money ripples out to society at large. When people who never saved for their entire lives cry bitterly that Social Security isn't enough to live on and then become dependent on the taxpayers for additional subsidies, I have a problem with that. When people go crazy with debt (a la the housing crisis) and then default on their debts, I have a problem with that. When the majority of the citizens of a country as a whole is either living payday to payday or going further in debt (as is the case in the US), there are very ugly repercussions, as we are now finding out. So I do think there is a moral responsibility to save. We all suffer the consequences when large numbers of people don't.

[ragnarkar]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

You makes some good points here, but I do have one point of disagreement. I think being responsible with money ripples out to society at large. When people who never saved for their entire lives cry bitterly that Social Security isn't enough to live on and then become dependent on the taxpayers for additional subsidies, I have a problem with that. When people go crazy with debt (a la the housing crisis) and then default on their debts, I have a problem with that. When the majority of the citizens of a country as a whole is either living payday to payday or going further in debt (as is the case in the US), there are very ugly repercussions, as we are now finding out. So I do think there is a moral responsibility to save. We all suffer the consequences when large numbers of people don't.

Me thinks if we really must give more handouts, they need to attend an hour long seminar on frugality prior to it..

[slackjaw]

Originally Posted by scottfreez

Agree... as a software dev, in 12+ years I may have worked 3 or 4 16-hr days.

I've been software dev for 20 years in all sorts of companies and about same experience as you, could probably count the number 16 hour days on one hand and almost all of them were the day before some industry convention or similar timeline stresspoint.

Hell for most software devs I've worked with even a 12 hour day usually results in grumbling and vows to split early on Friday to make up for it.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Engineers, computer scientists, and scientists tend not to be overspenders. It seems introverts in general have less trouble with overspending because they are less prone to caring about what society thinks as their focus is more internal than external.

Yes and no - I care what my actual peers think - and if I went out and financed say a new Escalade, they would think, and rightly so, that I had gone nuts. I'd probably end up having to take a "whiz-quiz" because it would be so out of character.

But as to what the hoi-polloi, those of the 2-digit IQ and herd following mentality, think of me, my old cars, my casual clothes, my Einstein-esque need for a haircut - let them think what they want, to whatever extent they "think" at all.

But, as a class, we are not tightwads per se - we just want good value for the buck. Thus the $70K "bargain" Porker - bought with cash mind you.

[M3 Mitch]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

You makes some good points here, but I do have one point of disagreement. I think being responsible with money ripples out to society at large. When people who never saved for their entire lives cry bitterly that Social Security isn't enough to live on and then become dependent on the taxpayers for additional subsidies, I have a problem with that. When people go crazy with debt (a la the housing crisis) and then default on their debts, I have a problem with that. When the majority of the citizens of a country as a whole is either living payday to payday or going further in debt (as is the case in the US), there are very ugly repercussions, as we are now finding out. So I do think there is a moral responsibility to save. We all suffer the consequences when large numbers of people don't.

The problem is, for the most part, to make good money anymore you have to have some brains - this definitely includes trades, you can't train a dummy to be a mechanic anymore and that probably went away in the 1980's sometime - that and you need some planning skills, etc.

And the ability to think long-term. As Dr. Thomas Sowell said, anyone who has a high time preference, that is, they prefer a smaller reward NOW to a bigger reward later, is lower class, or will be (witness many retired athletes who spend their old age in poverty). And vice-versa - those with a low time preference are high class, or will be - witness mostly immigrants who start out with $10 and an idea, and in a decade own a valuable business. And in the next decade or so they have founded a business dynasty, really, setting up their kids in the biz, and/or brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles. These people earn interest rather than pay it, and in the rare cases where they do take out a loan, it's to build the business, and unless something goes wrong, whatever the loan funds makes more than enough money to pay for the loan, and lasts long after the loan is paid off.

So the very people who are not worth much in the marketplace, and don't earn much, are the same people who don't have the ability to make the most of the limited income they *do* have.

Here I should put what to do about it, but I don't know the answer to that problem.

[slackjaw]

This is a good point. Hard work can compensate for a certain level of lack of innate talent but there comes a point where some just aren't cut out for most of the jobs that make good money.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

But as to what the hoi-polloi, those of the 2-digit IQ and herd following mentality, think of me, my old cars, my casual clothes, my Einstein-esque need for a haircut - let them think what they want, to whatever extent they "think" at all.

Same thing those very same people think of my 21-year-old white Toyota truck (honk if you see me around town), my crewcut grown out (because why cut it obsessively if it's falling out anyway), my sweats or shorts and t-shirts, and so on.

I heard it described once, by a friend: "He simply does not care what anyone thinks. A lot of people like to talk that as a game, but deep down most care what people think. He doesn't." Don't get me wrong; like you probably do, I dress up to whatever the occasion is. But I'm doing that because of the occasion and what's suitable, not to impress anyone. On a regular daily basis, I simply do not care. I wouldn't care even if impressing people weren't a money sink. It being such, ices the deal for me.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

You makes some good points here, but I do have one point of disagreement. I think being responsible with money ripples out to society at large. When people who never saved for their entire lives cry bitterly that Social Security isn't enough to live on and then become dependent on the taxpayers for additional subsidies, I have a problem with that. When people go crazy with debt (a la the housing crisis) and then default on their debts, I have a problem with that. When the majority of the citizens of a country as a whole is either living payday to payday or going further in debt (as is the case in the US), there are very ugly repercussions, as we are now finding out. So I do think there is a moral responsibility to save. We all suffer the consequences when large numbers of people don't.

How much do you expect burger flippers to save for retirement? Do you expect people earning minimum wage to have large nest eggs?

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

And the ability to think long-term. As Dr. Thomas Sowell said, anyone who has a high time preference, that is, they prefer a smaller reward NOW to a bigger reward later, is lower class, or will be (witness many retired athletes who spend their old age in poverty). And vice-versa - those with a low time preference are high class, or will be - witness mostly immigrants who start out with $10 and an idea, and in a decade own a valuable business. And in the next decade or so they have founded a business dynasty, really, setting up their kids in the biz, and/or brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles. These people earn interest rather than pay it, and in the rare cases where they do take out a loan, it's to build the business, and unless something goes wrong, whatever the loan funds makes more than enough money to pay for the loan, and lasts long after the loan is paid off.

I can't believe you wrote that. Surely you miswrote that part about "they prefer a smaller reward NOW to a bigger reward later, is lower class, or will be (witness many retired athletes who spend their old age in poverty)."

Isn't it the other way around, that those who prefer a larger reward NOW (immediate gratification) are lower class, and will be poor in the long run?

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

Here I should put what to do about it, but I don't know the answer to that problem.

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by M3 Mitch

And the ability to think long-term. As Dr. Thomas Sowell said, anyone who has a high time preference, that is, they prefer a smaller reward NOW to a bigger reward later, is lower class, or will be (witness many retired athletes who spend their old age in poverty). And vice-versa

There was a study that was reported in the Wall Street Journal involving a child's ability to delay pleasure. The study involved marshmellows. A child was given a marshmallow. The child could eat the marshmallow more. However, if they held on to it for 20 minutes, they would receive another one.

Go ahead: Eat the Marshmallow now. (You were likely born that way) - latimes.com

Meghan Daum: The psychology of an economic downturn - latimes.com