Why do poor people always rationalize why they don't have things outside their means?

[prism]

I almost feel bad for the OP, since I don't think it was his intention to mock people with lower incomes, but he really did phrase it badly.

People that have $300 HT systems and that are able to eat $100 meals (no matter how rarely) are in no way poor, just in a lower income bracket than the OP. That's a pretty crass thing to say about people who don't live the "alkemyst dream".

I'm a college student working part time during the school year and full time over summers, so I know what being low on cash is like. Yes, there are expensive things that I'd like to have someday, and admittedly some of them just for the vanity of it.

However, I realize that having these things would be fun for awhile, but the thrill would wear off, just like everything you can buy. Financial security is much more appealing to me than having a posh house and car because A) the people who would associate with you simply because of your wealth are not only shallow, but almost always morons, and B) anyone with half a brain would realize that you're simply trying to impress people with your luxury items.

And finally, I never hear "poor" people justifying their lifestyles and saying they'd rather have their 5k car than a 50k one. I hear people saying they're HAPPY where they're at, but your argument seems a little exaggerated.

 

[Skacer]

You know, did anyone in this thread even read the OP? Everyone seems to be latching onto "what's wrong with people who live within their means" but that is not what I read at all.

You can have a person who likes their $5,000 car but knows that the $150,000 is probably better. And then there is the person living in denial who actually believes that their $5,000 car is really the best car ever made and everyone else just didn't get the memo. It is perfectly possible to be happy and still know there are things you can't afford but could probably benefit from. Infact, I'd consider this sane. A new family might have settled for a smaller house, but they still have goals of owning something better, and even then they should probably be able to admit there will always be something out of their reach. Hell, I'll say it right now, I will never be able to own the best house out there. That doesn't really come as some sort of surprise to me, nor should it. It's not that I wouldn't want the best house out there, I simply don't want to put forth the effort (or luck) that would be required to obtain something like that. At a certain point the risk vs reward skews. While the reward is still better, it is not THAT much better as to justify the work required.

Although, when talking houses, the matter can be even more skewed. I've seen what passes as million dollar homes in California, and it really isn't all that great. It wouldn't be shock me to hear someone say they'd prefer a 450k house in NH to a million dollar home in California. That is one scenario where more $ doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Prism
I almost feel bad for the OP, since I don't think it was his intention to mock people with lower incomes, but he really did phrase it badly.

People that have $300 HT systems and that are able to eat $100 meals (no matter how rarely) are in no way poor, just in a lower income bracket than the OP. That's a pretty crass thing to say about people who don't live the "alkemyst dream".

I'm a college student working part time during the school year and full time over summers, so I know what being low on cash is like. Yes, there are expensive things that I'd like to have someday, and admittedly some of them just for the vanity of it.

However, I realize that having these things would be fun for awhile, but the thrill would wear off, just like everything you can buy. Financial security is much more appealing to me than having a posh house and car because A) the people who would associate with you simply because of your wealth are not only shallow, but almost always morons, and B) anyone with half a brain would realize that you're simply trying to impress people with your luxury items.

And finally, I never hear "poor" people justifying their lifestyles and saying they'd rather have their 5k car than a 50k one. I hear people saying they're HAPPY where they're at, but your argument seems a little exaggerated.

Don't feel bad for me man, I am not some emo kid. My intention was not to mock anyone. It's others being defensive taking it that way. If anything I feel bad for them, I would hate living a life I felt was lacking.

Poor was probably a 'poor' choice of words. People without sufficient income for the things they are talking about is probably better.

Anyway, you are missing the fact that one can have financial security and have all the toys they want.

Your A and B is sort of problematic. not many people making 7 figures a year associate with those making barely in the 5 figures. It has nothing to do with them being snobby, just that their lives are incompatable.

Showing up in a Ferrari gets a lot of people saying 'who does he think he is', 'must have a small wiener' etc. For some people the Ferrari is just a car.

What my post was about is the guy that now rationalizes why he doesn't drive a Ferrari as if it were an option on his salary.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Skacer
You know, did anyone in this thread even read the OP? Everyone seems to be latching onto "what's wrong with people who live within their means" but that is not what I read at all.

You can have a person who likes their $5,000 car but knows that the $150,000 is probably better. And then there is the person living in denial who actually believes that their $5,000 car is really the best car ever made and everyone else just didn't get the memo. It is perfectly possible to be happy and still know there are things you can't afford but could probably benefit from. Infact, I'd consider this sane. A new family might have settled for a smaller house, but they still have goals of owning something better, and even then they should probably be able to admit there will always be something out of their reach. Hell, I'll say it right now, I will never be able to own the best house out there. That doesn't really come as some sort of surprise to me, nor should it. It's not that I wouldn't want the best house out there, I simply don't want to put forth the effort (or luck) that would be required to obtain something like that. At a certain point the risk vs reward skews. While the reward is still better, it is not THAT much better as to justify the work required.

Although, when talking houses, the matter can be even more skewed. I've seen what passes as million dollar homes in California, and it really isn't all that great. It wouldn't be shock me to hear someone say they'd prefer a 450k house in NH to a million dollar home in California. That is one scenario where more $ doesn't necessarily mean better.

Exactly what I was trying to get across. Thanks for reading and not thinking it was about the rich vs the poor or me touting that I am some kind of Sugar Daddy.

You explained the house thing well.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Skacer
You know, did anyone in this thread even read the OP? Everyone seems to be latching onto "what's wrong with people who live within their means" but that is not what I read at all.

You can have a person who likes their $5,000 car but knows that the $150,000 is probably better. And then there is the person living in denial who actually believes that their $5,000 car is really the best car ever made and everyone else just didn't get the memo. It is perfectly possible to be happy and still know there are things you can't afford but could probably benefit from. Infact, I'd consider this sane. A new family might have settled for a smaller house, but they still have goals of owning something better, and even then they should probably be able to admit there will always be something out of their reach. Hell, I'll say it right now, I will never be able to own the best house out there. That doesn't really come as some sort of surprise to me, nor should it. It's not that I wouldn't want the best house out there, I simply don't want to put forth the effort (or luck) that would be required to obtain something like that. At a certain point the risk vs reward skews. While the reward is still better, it is not THAT much better as to justify the work required.

Although, when talking houses, the matter can be even more skewed. I've seen what passes as million dollar homes in California, and it really isn't all that great. It wouldn't be shock me to hear someone say they'd prefer a 450k house in NH to a million dollar home in California. That is one scenario where more $ doesn't necessarily mean better.

Exactly what I was trying to get across. Thanks for reading and not thinking it was about the rich vs the poor or me touting that I am some kind of Sugar Daddy.

You explained the house thing well.

Meh, I'd prefer a 3000 sq ft house to a 30,000 sq ft house.

I prefer my VW to the Ferarri


You don't have to be poor to hold these opinions.

 

[krunchykrome]

:roll: Some people just cant help themselves.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

How about people who get annoyed at me for living below my obvious means?

I don't "dress" the part, etc? I need to have a "better car" .... etc...

I don't do expensive resturaunts either... as for the other things... who says you have to spend money? Who are you trying to impress? People who don't even know you or never will see again?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Skacer
You know, did anyone in this thread even read the OP? Everyone seems to be latching onto "what's wrong with people who live within their means" but that is not what I read at all.

You can have a person who likes their $5,000 car but knows that the $150,000 is probably better. And then there is the person living in denial who actually believes that their $5,000 car is really the best car ever made and everyone else just didn't get the memo. It is perfectly possible to be happy and still know there are things you can't afford but could probably benefit from. Infact, I'd consider this sane. A new family might have settled for a smaller house, but they still have goals of owning something better, and even then they should probably be able to admit there will always be something out of their reach. Hell, I'll say it right now, I will never be able to own the best house out there. That doesn't really come as some sort of surprise to me, nor should it. It's not that I wouldn't want the best house out there, I simply don't want to put forth the effort (or luck) that would be required to obtain something like that. At a certain point the risk vs reward skews. While the reward is still better, it is not THAT much better as to justify the work required.

Although, when talking houses, the matter can be even more skewed. I've seen what passes as million dollar homes in California, and it really isn't all that great. It wouldn't be shock me to hear someone say they'd prefer a 450k house in NH to a million dollar home in California. That is one scenario where more $ doesn't necessarily mean better.

Exactly what I was trying to get across. Thanks for reading and not thinking it was about the rich vs the poor or me touting that I am some kind of Sugar Daddy.

You explained the house thing well.

Meh, I'd prefer a 3000 sq ft house to a 30,000 sq ft house.

I prefer my VW to the Ferarri


You don't have to be poor to hold these opinions.

i wouldnt want a Ferarri either. i would either end up dead or poor from all the speeding tickets heh.


not to mention i usually have my wife and kids with me.

as for the 30k sq/ft house? Why? be nice ot have my own bedroom. my wife snores way to much!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
How about people who get annoyed at me for living below my obvious means?

I don't "dress" the part, etc? I need to have a "better car" .... etc...

I don't do expensive resturaunts either... as for the other things... who says you have to spend money? Who are you trying to impress? People who don't even know you or never will see again?

I have seen that happen too. Not really what my thread was about, but as a teenager my dad bought me a car he put $40k into. At the time he drove a Chevy Citation as a commuter back and forth to work (he had a 2 hour commute).

He could have afforded a lot nicer car, but felt the mileage made it just like burning money each day. If he was much wealthier though there comes a point when it really doesn't matter. People talk about not ever spending on certain things no matter how much they had, but once you get a few million or if one ever had a billion in the bank; you are talking more money than most can spend in a year.

 

[prism]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shivetya
How about people who get annoyed at me for living below my obvious means?

I don't "dress" the part, etc? I need to have a "better car" .... etc...

I don't do expensive resturaunts either... as for the other things... who says you have to spend money? Who are you trying to impress? People who don't even know you or never will see again?

I have seen that happen too. Not really what my thread was about, but as a teenager my dad bought me a car he put $40k into. At the time he drove a Chevy Citation as a commuter back and forth to work (he had a 2 hour commute).

He could have afforded a lot nicer car, but felt the mileage made it just like burning money each day. If he was much wealthier though there comes a point when it really doesn't matter. People talk about not ever spending on certain things no matter how much they had, but once you get a few million or if one ever had a billion in the bank; you are talking more money than most can spend in a year.

Guess that explains it...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Prism
Guess that explains it...

That wasn't really that spectacular compared to some of my friends that had 930 turbos and 328's as first cars.

I still worked part time jobs. I didn't rag on my friends with lesser cars either.

 

[randumb]

I think food is an exception because taste is too subjective. I can see someone enjoying a $10 fresh lobster tail with butter more than a $50 haute cuisine lobster dinner.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Evander
Having a high priced car means high priced insurance. High priced house = high property taxes. If you're content with the basics, paying the associated extra costs sucks.

Getting cheaper stuff also means you don't have to feel like you're walking on eggshells- I would happily use an old coffee table to put my feet on and put drinks on there w/o coasters, but spending several hundred $ on one means I'd have to treat it like a museum piece.

Sometimes it's worth it- I bought an expensive smartphone b/c I like having one portable device that does everything, but still I worry how it would suck it were lost/stolen/damaged

The people that can afford such a coffee table though, treat it like a coffee table.

I am not talking about stretching yourself and plastic coating furniture. I am talking about those that say even if they could they'd leave the plastic on.

That mentality.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Just to clarify, I completely agree with Dr. Pizza. I know what I like and what I can afford. I'm not trying to impress anyone, but I do know that things that I own are coveted by my coworkers AND I have way more in savings at the same time. Buying used cars for transportation and spending less on worthless stuff allows me to have an AR15 and save. It allows me to build a new computer when I want, take vacation where I want, etc.

aren't you a soldier supposedly? What would co-workers be.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: jagec

No...you made the assumption that people who are content with their lifestyles must be wrong, and are secretly pining for the richer things in life. There are some people who bring it up overly much and have an inferiority complex, but they aren't the majority. When you posted on ATOT about it and asked for comments, people repeated the obvious truth--that not all the expensive stuff is much better than the cheaper stuff, that spending more money isn't the key to happiness, and so on.

You just don't seem to get it. Again you started assuming that this was all a show put on to convince ourselves that we're doing OK when actually we'd love to own more, more more!

We're not getting "defensive", we're trying to explain our position. If your core belief is that 'poor' people are miserable, than no matter how happy they really are, you'll wrongly see that as a poor cover for the actual state of affairs. And you'll pick the few people who actually ARE miserable and trying to hide it as representative of the whole, and claim that as a proof of your flawed convictions. This is classic human psychology...self-fulfilling prophecy, the placebo effect, and stereotypes ALL stem from our tendency to come to a conclusion based on a few experiences, and then seek evidence that shores up these beliefs while unconsciously rejecting any evidence to the contrary. I'm not blaming you or claiming that you'll less intelligent because of this...we all do it...but try to surpass your natural tendencies in this matter, and consider other possibilities.

Cliffs: OP is a dick who doesn't get it?

No, no assumption. People have flat out said they think their POS escort with a mirror falling off is better than any Ferrari and that even if they had the money they'd still keep that car.

Talking about higher end restaurants, they go off on how the food there is a waste and talk about some bad experience usually that they 'had' at an even more pricey place.

I never said ALL POOR PEOPLE though. Again though I think something in you is being defensive of this. I don't see how your pseudo-psych evaluation applies though.

etc.

Dug777 knows a lot about dick.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This whole thread is moronic, and the OP's defenses of it are even dumber. Is there really an epidemic of people who maintain that their '91 Tempo is better than a 911?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DonVito
This whole thread is moronic, and the OP's defenses of it are even dumber. Is there really an epidemic of people who maintain that their '91 Tempo is better than a 911?

where did I say epidemic? Like other posters you have taken this from a niche to trying to make it apply to all people.

As a lawyer though I am sure you made many things more catastrophic than they were though right?

I would think you of all people could read the OP and discard the side issues brought up in the thread.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DonVito
This whole thread is moronic, and the OP's defenses of it are even dumber. Is there really an epidemic of people who maintain that their '91 Tempo is better than a 911?

where did I say epidemic? Like other posters you have taken this from a niche to trying to make it apply to all people.

As a lawyer though I am sure you made many things more catastrophic than they were though right?

I would think you of all people could read the OP and discard the side issues brought up in the thread.

I did read the OP. It's stupid, self-indulgent bullshit, and your defenses of it are even more absurd. How old are you, anyway? I hope for your sake you're a teenager.

 

[kmmatney]

This can apply to anyone at any income level. I'm sure there are millionaires who probably can't afford their own personal jet, but can rationalize it by being "happier to fly first class". etc, etc...

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: DonVito
This whole thread is moronic, and the OP's defenses of it are even dumber. Is there really an epidemic of people who maintain that their '91 Tempo is better than a 911?

where did I say epidemic? Like other posters you have taken this from a niche to trying to make it apply to all people.

As a lawyer though I am sure you made many things more catastrophic than they were though right?

I would think you of all people could read the OP and discard the side issues brought up in the thread.

If you actually could comprehend what you wrote in the OP, you would realize you're making a generalization of poor people. Not just a few people you've met but a sweeping generalization. Making this thread nothing but flamebait and you a troll.

The only person being defensive is yourself. The majority of folks here don't share the same insecurities as yourself. See a shrink, it may do wonders for you.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

If you actually could comprehend what you wrote in the OP, you would realize you're making a generalization of poor people. Not just a few people you've met but a sweeping generalization. Making this thread nothing but flamebait and you a troll.

The only person being defensive is yourself. The majority of folks here don't share the same insecurities as yourself. See a shrink, it may do wonders for you.

Well actually I did re-explain what I meant, but obviously since the only thing you have to do in life lately is troll my threads you don't bother reading...just attacking the poster or assuming they are the only adults on the forum (which I think is sort of creepy if they truly believe that).

A few people have understood exactly what I meant and don't play ignorant like our attorney friend DonVito and others.

DonVito is funny because he decides to use some odd extremes to debunk what I said. This is what attorneys do though. Someone in a 91 tempo or whatever is not usually going to try to defend that. However say a nicer more popular/in demand car, like my own 98 240SX...there is no way that it matches a Porsche or Ferrari in comfort/upscaleness on the inside. I can make it as fast, handle as well, etc...but to match them I'd have to probably spend more then to just buy one. I can have the interior redone and all the upgrades...it's all possible, but I'd be looking at more than $60-70k when all is said and done rather than the $25-30k I have into it now. I'd probably prefer that, but the 240SX is not my dream car.

The guy in this situation would while we talked about maybe the new 3 series BMW or say the 998 would immediately chime in how such a car is a waste blah blah blah and how his is just as good blah blah blah and even if he was a gazillionaire (which most that don't have money don't understand the power even a cool million in the bank is; hell even to have a positive net worth is rare) he would still keep his old 240sx as his only car.

They usually will cite the extra costs of such ownership and the like. However; they don't acknowledge the major increase in disposible income one usually has that can afford these items.

Another good example is highend watches. People tend to defend their own watch choice saying spending a car's value on a wrist piece is insane. Personally I wouldn't buy even a $1,000 watch for myself. It's not something I even care for. However, if I did make a multiple of my income it'd be a no brainer. My wife likes expensive watches though she owns enough in watches to buy a upper level car...not a huge collection compared to some that have a single watch worth 5 figures. This is a conversation we get into out occasionally as many in our circle like watches.

Anyways to answer his own question I am mid 30's. My social-economic status is middle class. My social circle includes those as young as early/mid 20's and as old at 50's (not counting family)...their financial backgrounds range from paycheck to paycheck to cover $300 or so rent to starting national franchises...and even a few celebrities when I was much younger. I tend to mingle a lot and talk to many people daily whether it's just in line at a store or someone that did something that caught my attention in passing.

That is exactly what I am talking about. To know acknowledge that happens shows one is either not too social or seems to stick with only lower class people (nothing wrong with that, but to say things don't happen outside one's circle is again being ignorant).

I was not bashing people with less, I was not classifying all poor(er) people, I did not say I was some kind of big high roller.

I can defend my stand without being defensive about it. I am not insecure in my position, I am comfortable but I am still growing my salary / responsibilities each year...I am not where I want to be though, but I am sure I can get to that level.

My topic was a little ambiguous, but I have since qualified it more. Many have no interest in reading here though, they just want to be some kind of tough guy or try to show how fast they can google up an answer. Also many respond to topics they only claim to have understanding about, but no real experience.

 

[Deeko]

why do YOU care? So they're happy with what they have, and they rationalize it, who are YOU to say otherwise? Ass.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

If you actually could comprehend what you wrote in the OP, you would realize you're making a generalization of poor people. Not just a few people you've met but a sweeping generalization. Making this thread nothing but flamebait and you a troll.

The only person being defensive is yourself. The majority of folks here don't share the same insecurities as yourself. See a shrink, it may do wonders for you.

Well actually I did re-explain what I meant, but obviously since the only thing you have to do in life lately is troll my threads you don't bother reading...just attacking the poster or assuming they are the only adults on the forum (which I think is sort of creepy if they truly believe that).

A few people have understood exactly what I meant and don't play ignorant like our attorney friend DonVito and others.

DonVito is funny because he decides to use some odd extremes to debunk what I said. This is what attorneys do though. Someone in a 91 tempo or whatever is not usually going to try to defend that. However say a nicer more popular/in demand car, like my own 98 240SX...there is no way that it matches a Porsche or Ferrari in comfort/upscaleness on the inside. I can make it as fast, handle as well, etc...but to match them I'd have to probably spend more then to just buy one. I can have the interior redone and all the upgrades...it's all possible, but I'd be looking at more than $60-70k when all is said and done rather than the $25-30k I have into it now. I'd probably prefer that, but the 240SX is not my dream car.

The guy in this situation would while we talked about maybe the new 3 series BMW or say the 998 would immediately chime in how such a car is a waste blah blah blah and how his is just as good blah blah blah and even if he was a gazillionaire (which most that don't have money don't understand the power even a cool million in the bank is; hell even to have a positive net worth is rare) he would still keep his old 240sx as his only car.

They usually will cite the extra costs of such ownership and the like. However; they don't acknowledge the major increase in disposible income one usually has that can afford these items.

Another good example is highend watches. People tend to defend their own watch choice saying spending a car's value on a wrist piece is insane. Personally I wouldn't buy even a $1,000 watch for myself. It's not something I even care for. However, if I did make a multiple of my income it'd be a no brainer. My wife likes expensive watches though she owns enough in watches to buy a upper level car...not a huge collection compared to some that have a single watch worth 5 figures. This is a conversation we get into out occasionally as many in our circle like watches.

Anyways to answer his own question I am mid 30's. My social-economic status is middle class. My social circle includes those as young as early/mid 20's and as old at 50's (not counting family)...their financial backgrounds range from paycheck to paycheck to cover $300 or so rent to starting national franchises...and even a few celebrities when I was much younger. I tend to mingle a lot and talk to many people daily whether it's just in line at a store or someone that did something that caught my attention in passing.

That is exactly what I am talking about. To know acknowledge that happens shows one is either not too social or seems to stick with only lower class people (nothing wrong with that, but to say things don't happen outside one's circle is again being ignorant).

I was not bashing people with less, I was not classifying all poor(er) people, I did not say I was some kind of big high roller.

I can defend my stand without being defensive about it. I am not insecure in my position, I am comfortable but I am still growing my salary / responsibilities each year...I am not where I want to be though, but I am sure I can get to that level.

My topic was a little ambiguous, but I have since qualified it more. Many have no interest in reading here though, they just want to be some kind of tough guy or try to show how fast they can google up an answer. Also many respond to topics they only claim to have understanding about, but no real experience.

If he's planning on actually driving a car everyday, He'd do better to keep the tempo/240sx instead of buying a showpiece.

Thrift is a virtue.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Deeko
why do YOU care? So they're happy with what they have, and they rationalize it, who are YOU to say otherwise? Ass.

umm I didn't say otherwise, I was wondering why.

Thanks for the comprehension skill example.

 

[Deeko]

Yes, very true, you didn't comprehend that there was an explanation in my post. Good work, before insulting others, make sure you aren't guilty of the same thing.