Count the Teslas in the food line

[Cassie]

Dman, I don’t disagree with you. The most extreme poverty I saw was when we took a cruise in the Caribbean and did a island tour.

[dividendman]

But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?

You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.

No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.

Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food).  As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.

I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.

You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?

I agree to a certain extent people should make tough choices if the situation warrants, and most people aren't willing to make those choices. Have you considered that it may be easier to for people to have the mental bandwidth to make tough choices if they don't have fear of where their next meal is coming from?

Yes, I agree with that. But, I guess my point that I was trying to make in my last post is say there are a few standard of living tiers:

1) Destitute - no roof over head, no food
2) Basic -  essentials but not comfortable - i.e. food and a roof, but might be renting a room in a house or sharing a room, public transport/walk, etc.
3) Middle - own living space, cars, tvs, more luxury foods, eating at restaurants, spending on all sorts of optional entertainment
4) Wealthy - 3) + more assets/income streams, fancier stuff
5) Rich - can't really move down significantly in category unless something crazy happens

Now, I feel that this thread is about preventing people from going from 4) or 3) to 2). Which i think is ridiculous, because 2) is still "fine".

We should be focused on raising people from 1) to 2).

But I think people feel 3) is the "basic" one and we should make sure people don't go from 4 or 3 to 2. Which I think is sad since we have so many at 1).

If that makes any sense. haha.

[nereo]

But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?

You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.

No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.

Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food).  As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.

I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.

You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?

I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities.  No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape.  You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.

[dividendman]

So you had a HCOL-salary job and didn't save any money... ok...

But anyway, if you sell at enough of a discount it should be fast. That's not the only option. Take a loan out against the equity. Rent a room. Get a part time job even if it's low paying. Sell all the expensive crap you bought with your HCOL salary to pay for food.

Lots of options.

So your primary solution is to do something that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars (fire sale on a house) instead?

You just might be delusional here.

Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.

You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?

I'm sorry, I thought this was the "person with Tesla getting food" thread, not the "person with Tesla lining up for free HDTV" thread.

Unless you think food is a luxury, in which case we have a different conversation to have.

For the house part - yes it sucks, but it frees up cash for essential purchases (assuming you're not underwater on the house). But the other options are also there with such a large asset.

For the Tesla getting food part - I guess I equate the Tesla as 30k of cash. Why are you going into the food line with 30k cash? Shouldn't you exchange your 30k cash for food first?

It falls into my lifestyle tier thinking above.

[afox]

I think what @nereo and others are saying is that moral hazard does not work if the person is poor. I agree!

Its a strawman argument though in this case. The tesla purchaser most certainly was not poor at the time of tesla purchase and could have used the tesla purchase money to boost their savings. I argue that they SHOULD HAVE saved the tesla money and that if they had saved the money they would likely not be in the food line.

If you dont have the ability to save then this isn't the website for you, I know people dont like to hear that but we all know its the truth. I mean I guess you could be doing research for the future when you have the ability to save. The whole moustachian schtick is about changing consumer decision making to LBYM and save money to create financial independence. Saving money really is a choice. Lots of us do it daily and watch our account balances grow exponentially. I have the ability to spend much more money than I make, instead I save much more money than I make, that is a conscious decision. If you think you have no choice but to buy a tesla for your commute then I suggest going back and reading the blog on this website.

[dividendman]

But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?

You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.

No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.

Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food).  As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.

I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.

You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?

I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities.  No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape.  You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.

Money is fungible though, if they have luxuries but are still being provided the necessities, you are providing them with the luxuries.

[nereo]

[For the Tesla getting food part - I guess I equate the Tesla as 30k of cash. Why are you going into the food line with 30k cash? Shouldn't you exchange your 30k cash for food first?[/quote]

Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.

[JLee]

But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?

You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.

No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.

Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food).  As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.

I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.

Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.

You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?

I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities.  No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape.  You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.

Money is fungible though, if they have luxuries but are still being provided the necessities, you are providing them with the luxuries.

You'd rather someone make a terrible financial decision and lose a hundred thousand dollars to have a fire-sale on their house than have a food bank give them $30 in groceries?

No, I don't expect someone to do that when in all likelihood they need a brief boost to keep them afloat until financial recovery happens.

I think what @nereo and others are saying is that moral hazard does not work if the person is poor. I agree!

Its a strawman argument though in this case. The tesla purchaser most certainly was not poor at the time of tesla purchase and could have used the tesla purchase money to boost their savings. I argue that they SHOULD HAVE saved the tesla money and that if they had saved the money they would likely not be in the food line.

If you dont have the ability to save then this isn't the website for you, I know people dont like to hear that but we all know its the truth. I mean I guess you could be doing research for the future when you have the ability to save. The whole moustachian schtick is about changing consumer decision making to LBYM and save money to create financial independence. Saving money really is a choice. Lots of us do it daily and watch our account balances grow exponentially. I have the ability to spend much more money than I make, instead I save much more money than I make, that is a conscious decision. If you think you have no choice but to buy a tesla for your commute then I suggest going back and reading the blog on this website.

The point



____
Your head

You're right about a strawman argument, but it's yours that's the strawman.  Nobody on this forum is saying that they're living off charity while driving an expensive car (although the original poster of this thread does plan on retiring by leveraging unemployment benefits, which IMO is worse).  We are explaining that there are ways for ordinary people to end up in such circumstances.

The capacity for empathy does not make me irresponsible.

[dividendman]

Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.

Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for/expect external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?

Same reply to @JLee

[afox]

We are explaining that there are ways for ordinary people to end up in such circumstances.

Like what? Can you give me an example?

I contend that "ordinary" people should not buy luxury cars if they do not have enough cash savings to feed themselves for a few months. I guess its possible that a lot of bad things happened at once like losing a job, major health expenses, house burning down, that could exhaust one's emergency savings but this does not appear to be an isolated and rare situation in the U.S.

Note that I also think people deserve to have food even if they made poor financial decisions/had very bad luck. We have so much food in the world that there is no reason for people to go hungry for any reason. We can still admit

[JLee]

Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.

Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?

Same reply to @JLee

Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.

[afox]

Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.

No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...

[JLee]

Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.

No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...

I can't say I've ever tried applying for a HELOC with no income, but I don't imagine that would go all that well.  You're also assuming that someone is in an oversized house and able to accommodate a roommate.

[dividendman]

Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.

Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?

Same reply to @JLee

Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.

Yeah I agree, and this gets to my larger point of how actual poor people get little compared to faux-poor folks. Million dollar house and a Tesla but short on cash? Here's a bailout/charity/etc.

Oh, you have 10k in savings, lost your job and have no other assets? Use your savings serf!

[Khaetra]

I just find this whole conversation about Telsa Person insane.  We have no idea about them, except they were in the food line.  They could have been an asshole, getting food for free whether they needed it or not.  They could have made a bad choice with their money.  They could just be picking up food for a parent or a neighbor who can't venture out.  We don't know and probably never will. 

But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.

[afox]

Im so glad I was brought up by cheapskate parents, it might have been the best give my parents could have ever given me.

Despite never being unemployed in my life since about age 16 I didn't buy my first new car until age 40 and it was with cash and it was not a tesla. The thought of buying a tesla but not having enough savings to buy food for a few months just seems ridiculous to me, but I get that I'm not normal. Anyone know of a good internet forum for cheapskates like me?

[dividendman]

But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.

I think that when a risk is taken, if you reap the benefits int he positive case, you should reap the consequences when there is a bad outcome. Someone who has squandered their money on a tesla/house/etc. they can't afford, should not be able to keep all of these luxuries when things turn bad.

Why do I think that? It's like what I said above. There are others who are in much worse predicaments and have been careful with their money, but we do not "advance" them to the same state as the frivolous person with the tesla (or whatever), so why should we protect the luxuries of the tesla (or whatever) owner? They should be required to have a firesale, not because it is a great move in an emergency, because that's the risk they took by buying and enjoying all of these luxuries instead of saving money.

I'm not advocating we don't give them food. I'm advocating they lose the luxuries.

[Paul der Krake]

Im so glad I was brought up by cheapskate parents, it might have been the best give my parents could have ever given me.

Despite never being unemployed in my life since about age 16 I didn't buy my first new car until age 40 and it was with cash and it was not a tesla. The thought of buying a tesla but not having enough savings to buy food for a few months just seems ridiculous to me, but I get that I'm not normal. Anyone know of a good internet forum for cheapskates like me?

Clearly not here. Despite having an entire forum subsection dedicated to people doing stupid shit with money, this thread appears to be the one where we bend over backwards to find acceptable explanations just so we don't hurt someone's feelings. Come to think of it, it's pretty similar to threads about trucks or weight loss.

[afox]

But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.

I think that when a risk is taken, if you reap the benefits int he positive case, you should reap the consequences when there is a bad outcome. Someone who has squandered their money on a tesla/house/etc. they can't afford, should not be able to keep all of these luxuries when things turn bad.

Why do I think that? It's like what I said above. There are others who are in much worse predicaments and have been careful with their money, but we do not "advance" them to the same state as the frivolous person with the tesla (or whatever), so why should we protect the luxuries of the tesla (or whatever) owner? They should be required to have a firesale, not because it is a great move in an emergency, because that's the risk they took by buying and enjoying all of these luxuries instead of saving money.

I'm not advocating we don't give them food. I'm advocating they lose the luxuries.

THis is why I keep thinking that I should get in the food line even though I have enough savings to afford my own food for the rest of my life. Ill stick out like a sore thumb in my 1995 geo metro though, it gets over 40 mpg!

[nereo]

Let’s put it this way:
Suppose a colleague came to me and said: we hit hard times, both my wife and I lost our job just weeks after we had some big expense. Now out fridge is empty and I’m overdrawn on my credit cards

My advice to him wouldn’t be “go sell your Tesla immediately”. It wold be to go get you and your children food.

Emergency planning 101: deal with the critical stuff first. Do a system review only after everything has stabilized.

[Laura33]

How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.

+1.  The old adage about glass houses and stones seems to fit here.  Anyone who hasn't been stupid with their money at some point in time is either very young or lacking in self-reflection.  Which is exactly why empathy is so important and judgmentalism is worthless and self-defeating.  I'm also laughing at the idea of the "moral hazard" of getting mocked in the food line as an incentive that will persuade people to make better choices.  Shame has never been a great motivator.  And really, when you're talking about someone driving his own six-figure Tesla to the food bank, you're by definition taking about someone who never thought there was a chance he'd be in that position in the first place; how's he supposed to be motivated by the shame associated with something he never thought he'd ever have to deal with?   

There is no question whatsoever that a Tesla is a tremendous luxury.  As is a big house.  As is a computer and air conditioning and indoor plumbing and a gazillion other things we all take for granted.  There is also no question that buying luxuries like that without having sufficient emergency funds to make it through several months without a job is remarkably stupid.

And yet it is also equally true that a lot of people are stupid like that -- including many, many people who later found their way here and repented of their spendthrift ways.  People who think that something bad will never happen to them; who assume that their industry is recession-proof; who assume that things will always be better tomorrow than they were yesterday; who believe that This Time It's Different; or maybe who didn't even think about savings, because they were brought up by parents who either didn't know how to teach good skills or affirmatively taught bad skills. 

None of that matters when the shit hits the fan and your kids are hungry.  At that point, it's the sunk cost fallacy -- you can wish all you want that you did things differently, but nothing is going to change that, and so you need to figure out how to dig yourself out of wherever you are.  And digging out is a combination of triage and planning.  Triage means maybe you go to the damn food line, because your family is hungry and you have no food and no money to buy it.  Planning is longer-term; it means cutting expenses and selling assets and re-scaling your life down to something that you can afford long-term.  But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom.  It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.

The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes.  And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening.  Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst.  And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.

[flyingaway]

I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.

Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.

[JLee]

I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.

Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.

If you're single with an AGI over $75k on your latest tax return, you don't get a $1200 stimulus check even if you're currently unemployed.

[afox]

But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom.  It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.

The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes.  And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening.  Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst.  And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.

Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...

[JLee]

But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom.  It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.

The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes.  And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening.  Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst.  And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.

Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...

So your solution to having insufficient savings is to burn it all at once and then have nothing?

That doesn't seem very well planned.

[nereo]

But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom.  It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.

The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes.  And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening.  Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst.  And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.

Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...

It’s pretty clear you want people to suffer to receive any charity or welfare - that without a significantly abhorrent deterrent people will not “learn their lesson” and the systems will get abused. This contradicts what we know about social safety nets and runs contrary to the concept of Charity.

[afox]

"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.

I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.

[slappy]

I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.

Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.

I agree with you to a certain extent but does it matter? I get the "money is fungible" argument. Maybe they will take the money they saved on food and spend it on a "luxury". I don't think it really matters. Like I mentioned before, people need to have a steady food source and be confident that basic needs will be met before they can start the planning that Laura was mentioning. Maslow's hierarchy and all that.

[mm1970]

Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.

No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...

I can't say I've ever tried applying for a HELOC with no income, but I don't imagine that would go all that well.  You're also assuming that someone is in an oversized house and able to accommodate a roommate.

I already have 4 people in 1100 sf.  No roommates coming here...

I also know a fair number of families already living multiple families to a house.  As in, parents and children sharing a single room.

[mm1970]

But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom.  It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.

The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes.  And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening.  Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst.  And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.

Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...

You seem to be approaching this emotionally, with a desire to see people suffer.  You say you don't, but otherwise "how will people learn their lesson".

The fact of the matter is, it is FAR more practical for someone to hold on to the truck in the long run, if their finances look like was mentioned.  Losing the truck simply means they are suddenly broke (because they had to use their $5000 savings to get out of the loan) AND they have no transportation.

That may "teach them a lesson", but now you have someone who is going to be "on the dole" for a lot longer because now they have no way to even get to a job so they can earn money to eat.

It's like the people who hate free school lunches, because "we need to teach the parents responsibility" when over and over we learn that a fair % of all these social programs are cheaper in the long run than the alternative. 

On one hand, yes, one might accuse people who care for others as being "too emotional", but on the other hand, the numbers generally work out in our favor.  As much as the other side thinks it's practical and not emotional, they make choices to make people suffer that actually cost more money in the long run.

[Dicey]

"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.

I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.

Sorry dude, every comment on this thread you started has a distinctively punitive ring to it. Others have made completely well-reasoned arguments, yet you cling to your original point of view. Clearly, you are not here to learn anything. Empathy is clearly not your strong suit.

[AlanStache]

The people driving expensive cars to get charity food for themselves are struggling; they will have non-food related bills that they would also be having trouble paying.  They may be putting bills on a credit cards or bartering away things for toilet paper.  Spending on food is not the only thing they would be struggling with but it is one that they can get immediate direct free help with.

[skp]

Does it matter if the Tesla owner donated to the food bank or other charities prior to they themselves fall on hard times? I think it does.  And if not I hope that the Tesla owners (or anybody for that matter) in the food line will donate food to the food bank after they got back on their feet. 

[nereo]

"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.

I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.

I don’t think it is.  You’ve advocated that people should be “forced to sell” their vehicles even if it is not the best financial decision, because then they might “learn a lesson”.  Apparently lost on you is that these people are asking for food now. Do we give them food but make them sign a document stating they’ll sell their car and get their financial house in order? Or do we refuse them food and tell them to come back in a crappier car later? Those are rhetorical questions of course: we don’t apply punitive measures on charity, and food lines don’t turn people away based on some first impression of their assets.

You are also making a huge leap in assuming that these people have learned nothing by winding up in the situation they are in.  You’re ‘evidence’ seems to be that they haven’t liquidated their most visible possessions, even when poster after poster has explained how that might be a dumb move which would compound their financial hardship.  As I said before, anyone driving a Tesla or any other luxury vehicle knows they screwed up if they are asking for food.  They are already evaluating their options and realizing they didn’t have the financial cushion they thought they did.

[afox]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Also, try disagreeing with me without insulting me and frothing at the mouth. Its a really good life skill, especially in this day and age...

[nereo]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Alright, here’s a very simple question:

If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?

[afox]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Alright, here’s a very simple question:

If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?

Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.

[nereo]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Alright, here’s a very simple question:

If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?

Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.

Correct, you have said that. 
Now how can you also claim that there should be punitive measures if they be given good “no matter what” (to quote you from earlier)?

Those two statements are diametrically opposed. 

[NotJen]

And if not I hope that the Tesla owners (or anybody for that matter) in the food line will donate food to the food bank after they got back on their feet.

The one I volunteered at (which counts on drop-in help), most of the volunteers they got were people who also needed food.  They want to give back while they are taking.

I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.

Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.

I highly recommend seeing one, by volunteering.  It was easy to believe that everyone in the line really could not afford food.  If you have money, it really is preferable to just go to the store and get what you want when you want - the food we were giving out - you took what was there, no choices, and a lot had to be used right away before it spoiled, some probably already was spoiled, you had to wait a long time, then were pressured to move through, and carrying everything was hard and awkward.  I was offered a box, and I declined, even though I am unemployed and cheap - I would much rather get my own food.

[afox]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Alright, here’s a very simple question:

If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?

Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.

Correct, you have said that. 
Now how can you also claim that there should be punitive measures if they be given good “no matter what” (to quote you from earlier)?

Those two statements are diametrically opposed.

I already wrote what "punitive" means to me, its in the quote im replying to.

As I thought about this I realized that my "ideal" is actually the reality/current situation. We already do have a system in which if you cant pay your car payment your car will be repossessed. And while your car is getting repossessed you can still get in the food line. I guess the banks/repossessors/courts lack empathy.

[Rosy]

A car in a food line may draw speculation, but condemnation without the facts is plain wrong.
Worse, it points to ignorance, self-glorification, and shows a lack of empathy.

There will always be those who use the system in their favor even if they do not need help.
It is the way of the world - some people always take more than their share.

Just like there are people who assume the worst and sit in judgment of a "perceived" financial situation without a shred of evidence.
 
I suspect that in the long run, this pandemic will substantially deepen the chasm between the haves and the have not's, here in the US.
But it is fascinating to see how some people have found ways to profit from the current calamity while others only wait for government assistance.
A crisis brings out both the best and the worst in people, your true character is revealed.

No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.

I don't think so. Taking drastic measures while we are at the beginning of a financial meltdown does not sound like a smart choice.
Losing thousands on the sale of your car vs getting some temporary help to stay afloat "might well" be the better choice until you see where things are heading and you've had an opportunity to explore all your options. 
We are talking about $30 worth of food, not thousands of undeserved charity!
Who knows, they might be a chef, selling home-cooked dinners out of their car by next week - people do find ways to keep going, even prosper.

Fools rush in - both with ill-considered decisions prompted by fear and by condemning a stranger for "possibly" having made poor financial decisions.

Sometimes we can't seem to help ourselves in having uncharitable thoughts ... I admit to having a couple recently:).
There have been many demonstrations relating to the dysfunctional, outdated unemployment system in our state that simply can't manage to pay out claims. The site keeps crashing ...
So last week I watched an outraged woman on TV being interviewed live on the streets of Tampa.

She fumed at not receiving unemployment benefits since applying over six weeks ago. She said she had to borrow $20 from her daughter because she had no money left to make a sign for the demonstration... Then went on to say she spent $13 on materials ...
WTF?
It defies common sense - our liquor stores and grocery stores are open - free cardboard - right?!

LOL - all I could think of was, "you need that $13 for food, silly!"
Besides, you better start finding ways to help yourself in the future because this pandemic is not done by a longshot.
Relying on the govt to bail you out spells trouble.
Huffing and puffing because she was trying to keep up with the march in the heat and humidity - she also was not wearing a mask.
So my next uncharitable thought was, "I wonder if she will be around in another six months?".

Interesting times we live in.

Like someone already said, unless you are quite wealthy unforeseen events can take away your life as you know it and leave you financially devastated - no matter how frugal you were or how meticulously you planned.

[Cranky]

Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?

In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.

[mathlete]

Skimmed the first few pages. Did anyone actually see a Tesla in a food line? This seems like made up outrage.

[Rosy]

Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".

Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.

Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.

Also, try disagreeing with me without insulting me and frothing at the mouth. Its a really good life skill, especially in this day and age...

For all you know the person driving the Tesla is living in it.

[JLee]

Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?

In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.

Somewhat ironically given this thread, my friend with a Tesla has been delivering food to a friend with a low paying service job.

[penguintroopers]

@rachellynn99 , would you be willing to share your research? It sounds really interesting.

[Laura33]

Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?

In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.

Yes.  Legal industry has been laying off/cutting pay for a month.  Retail companies are extremely hard-hit; while most affected workers are lower-pay, those places will also have have corporate managers and VPs and such who will be caught in the massive downsizing.  And that's not even getting into what's happening in the oil and gas sector (not that those guys are going to be driving Teslas).

[YHD]

Physician practices including those owned by corporate or private equity are suffering with physician lay-offs and practice bankruptcies.

In those industries, even if you are a mustachian and prepare for a black swan, the extent of the current situation would have been so unpredictable that even I would have bought the Tesla.

[nereo]

Physician practices including those owned by corporate or private equity are suffering with physician lay-offs and practice bankruptcies.

In those industries, even if you are a mustachian and prepare for a black swan, the extent of the current situation would have been so unpredictable that even I would have bought the Tesla.

My sister is a physician for a large health care practice in a hot-spot area.  Their revenue for April was down 87% and the doctors have been reassigned to COVID testing sites (where patients are not billed).  It’s a giant unknown how they will get paid in the months ahead.

[rachellynn99]

@rachellynn99 , would you be willing to share your research? It sounds really interesting.

I would love to. Let me get it published - at least through Proquest at my school then I can give it out.