Count the Teslas in the food line

[rachellynn99]

Just finished my Phd Dissertation. Food Insecurity and Empathy. I'm a Registered Dietitian as well and specialize in Community Nutrition. My research showed that women show more empathy towards food insecure individuals than men and that married folks are more empathetic than singles. Are you a single fellow by chance?

[slappy]

Just finished my Phd Dissertation. Food Insecurity and Empathy. I'm a Registered Dietitian as well and specialize in Community Nutrition. My research showed that women show more empathy towards food insecure individuals than men and that married folks are more empathetic than singles. Are you a single fellow by chance?

That sounds like a really interesting paper.

[skp]

I see both sides of this.  The Tesla might be the means to pick up the food in the food line.  Most people aren't going to take advantage of the system.  But I just shake my head sometimes at people. My brother in law's brother is schiophrenic.  He relies on the food banks.  When we have Christmas dinner leftovers and offer them to him, he refuses.  My brotherinlaw volunteered/ worked for food banks and would often give us food that the food line people wouldn't take/ didn't want.   Not talking about stuff you couldn't cook because you didn't have a stove.  More like bags of avacados and a huge bag of frozen blueberries.  I took it because otherwise it would go into the trash.  I go to the local salvage stores which sell expired food.  Not allowed in food banks.

[dividendman]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

[Dicey]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.

[dividendman]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.

I agree that selling a house in a pandemic is not a good idea. I think that people should live off of their savings if they lose their jobs. Don't have savings? Then yes, sell all your luxurious crap before you look for government or private handouts.

[ETF2]

Due to CV, people are staying in their vehicles. I've seen pictures of long lines of cars snaked around parking lots waiting for their turn. Don't know if this is standard operating procedure these days, but it certainly is an effective way to maintain social distancing and keeping anyone from cutting a line. Dunno what the folks without cars do.

At least where I live, the lines can be miles long.  People were getting in the lines the night before, camping out.  You drive through with your trunk open, slowly, and as you get to each station, the volunteers load stuff in your trunk.  Eggs, meat, veggies, rice, etc. etc.

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/04/29/food-distribution-south-florida-long-lines/

They are running out of food.  So yes, someone there in a $100k car, certainly brings up valid questions.  Many of the cars in the lines are the opposite of Mustachian.  Though I guess you could argue that's how they ended up in food lines...  But still.  I think it bugs some of us when they see a $100k Tesla in these lines because there are desperate families, extremely poor, who are being left without food when they run out... but someone gets a full share in their Tesla...

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

In the late 80s I worked admin in the court office where bankruptcies were filed. First little job out of school. I remember seeing beautifully dressed people driving expensive cars, way beyond what I could afford, coming in to file. Kind of puts things in perspective seeing that so young.

[SailingOnASmallSailboat]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.

I agree that selling a house in a pandemic is not a good idea. I think that people should live off of their savings if they lose their jobs. Don't have savings? Then yes, sell all your luxurious crap before you look for government or private handouts.

Hope you're wrong as we just put ours on the market (not because we have to - because we want to.)

[slappy]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

[Dicey]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

[nereo]

Reading over this thread it does seem like a number of posters believe that a person

• should not take charity unless they are truly without other options (e.g. sell their homes, cars, non-essential items first; exhaust savings and lines of credit)
• ought to have their previous financial decisions applied to whether or not they should be taking charity now

I'm not certain that placing charity as the last option is the best course of action for assisting people and helping them get out of their situation, and I suspect the number of people who have never been frivolous with their money is vanishingly small.  Regardless, this thread indicates that the stigma of taking assistance is quite real.

[Cranky]

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.

Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.

[nereo]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.

Oh, I remember those days well...  At one point we walked around our neighborhood and counted over 40 homes either for sale or under eviction.  Lots of people who thought they had 'safe' jobs and a substantial amount of equity in their homes discovered they needed to bring >$50k they no longer had to sell the house they no longer could pay in the hopes of getting their heads back above water.   Cemented in me the idea that one shouldn't count on home equity to save them in a downturn, and further prioritized saving and spending below our means.

[Car Jack]

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

You must live in a very low property tax area.  I pay about $800 a month on a $500k house.  (26 miles, 385 yards west of Boston)

[afox]

RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...

There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.

The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.

[nereo]

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

You must live in a very low property tax area.  I pay about $800 a month on a $500k house.  (26 miles, 385 yards west of Boston)

How do you like living in Hopkinton?

[JLee]

RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...

There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.

The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.

There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.

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.

Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.

There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.

[afox]

RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...

There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.

The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.

There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.

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.

Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.

There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.

by "do the same thing" I mean a similarly sized automobile that also gets you from point a to point b.

[mm1970]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.

Yup.  We bought our house in 2004.  Bad timing, but could have been worse.  Next door house sold in 2006.

Our house started dropping in value in 2007 and it did not reach the purchase price until August of 2017.
The house next door was well into 2018. (They got foreclosed on.  New guy bought it in 2012.)

We were never underwater because we put 20% down and were aggressively paying the mortgage, so that in 2012 when it was worth the minimum ($493k), we owed about that amount exactly.  My coworker kept telling me to "WALK AWAY".  Dude, we aren't under water.

[dividendman]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

[nereo]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

Does owning a luxury preclude someone from using charity?

(note: by your definition nearly everyone owns a great deal of luxuries. cell-phones, computers, microwaves, AC, etc)

nevermind - seems you've already stated your position that people should only get asssistence with no car, no luxuries and living in a tiny apartment

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

[Dicey]

RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...

There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.

The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.

There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.

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.

Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.

There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.

by "do the same thing" I mean a similarly sized automobile that also gets you from point a to point b.

You're still missing the point.

[JLee]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

Selling houses costs a lot. Moving to a 1br apartment (nevermind the three adults living in my house right now) would "save" some money per month but after paying first/last rent and the nearly-mandatory 1mo realtor fee for rentals, it would take me about a year to break even from my "savings", and then I have no house.  In other words, it's cheaper for me to not move even if I did lose my job.

[afox]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

[nereo]

selling a luxury vehicle (or a home) quickly (read: "motivated seller") is rarely the best way of going about it.  As others have mentioned it may not be optimal or even possible to sell a vehicle quickly if it is leased or financed.  At the same the need for food is fairly immediate.

If someone was suddenly in a financial bind for whatever reason (be it Covid or something else) I would advise them to get what assistance they can now, and then spend the next few months developing a plan to be more financially stable and secure in the future. 

[mm1970]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)

In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.

[mm1970]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

[Khaetra]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)

In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.

+1.  Many thing that we didn't have back in the '50's are necessary now.  I don't think that test applies for the real world.

[slappy]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.

And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.

Oh, I remember those days well...  At one point we walked around our neighborhood and counted over 40 homes either for sale or under eviction.  Lots of people who thought they had 'safe' jobs and a substantial amount of equity in their homes discovered they needed to bring >$50k they no longer had to sell the house they no longer could pay in the hopes of getting their heads back above water.   Cemented in me the idea that one shouldn't count on home equity to save them in a downturn, and further prioritized saving and spending below our means.

Just watched the movie "Fun with Dick and Jane" on Netflix recently. It was about a VP who had a bunch of savings (all in company stock) only to have the company go bankrupt and the house he thought he had equity in decline in value significantly. It was interesting to watch it now, compared to years ago when I first watched it. I certainly have a much better understanding of the financial issues the guy found himself faced with. He thought he had a safe job and equity, and it turned out that was far from the truth.

[Cranky]

I do think that we are all living incredibly luxurious lives, even without Tesla’s. (Which reallybare fancy cars built by someone who seems chronically obnoxious, but I do digress.)

Just because we are used to luxury, doesn’t make it non-luxurious. We live in a society where you can never catch up because luxuries are rebranded as necessities.

[simonsez]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)

In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.

+1.  Many thing that we didn't have back in the '50's are necessary now.  I don't think that test applies for the real world.

My house is asbestos-free and there are a lot of things I consume in the economic sense that do not have 1950s levels of lead in them.  I do think my life is full of fancy things but I've never thought to include these, a lot more to be grateful for!

[afox]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.

[JLee]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.

Cheaper TCO than a new Camry.  https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/27/tesla-model-3-vs-toyota-camry-5-year-cost-to-own/

It's easy to be judgey of a badge without knowing what's behind the decision. It'd be more accurate to be uppity about any new car than specifically targeting Tesla.

[nereo]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.

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.

[dividendman]

I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.

Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?

I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.

Who gets to decide what is a luxury?

I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.

cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)

In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.

Yeah, obviously it's not exact. My point is people survived then on much less than what we have now. People think having expensive (read: over 8k for a car) is a necessity, i'ts not. People are just unwilling to do what they need to do to live within their means.

If you "need" a cell phone and internet for work, then you have work and payment isn't a problem.

Cars aren't needed for most work - work a lower paying job that doesn't need a car if you can't afford a car.

Ride a bike. Walk. Takes an hour to walk to work? Suck it up buttercup.

[afox]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.

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.

Yes, I think there should be some degree of moral hazard. I dont think we should let people starve because they made a poor financial decision or mock them, that is unlikely to be helpful. I dont have the answer but some degree of moral hazard is necessary to prevent people from making poor decisions.

[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.

[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.

Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.

Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?

[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.

Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.

Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?

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.

[nereo]

You're still missing the point.

please explain!

I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas.  They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper.  THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla. 

In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.

ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.

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.

Yes, I think there should be some degree of moral hazard. I dont think we should let people starve because they made a poor financial decision or mock them, that is unlikely to be helpful. I dont have the answer but some degree of moral hazard is necessary to prevent people from making poor decisions.

Well, then going back to what I said earlier I think the number of people who have never squandered a significant sum or money (either all at once or over time), or that have no made a large “bad purchase” is very close to zero.  Those that are consistently “good” with their money (as may be defined by people on this forum) rarely need charity.

Further, this believe in a “moral hazard” to prevent unsound financial situations isn’t upheld in real life.  People living in regions with robust social safety nets are not more likely to make larger financial blunders than those with no safety net at all.  This has been looked at with unemployment insurance, bankruptcy laws and SNAP benefits.  Frankly the concept seems to be used primarily to make people feel superior to others, and is frequently evoked for why we need more robust requirements for receiving assistance.

[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. 

[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?

[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.

Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.

Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?

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.

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 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.

[afox]

I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.

I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.

We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.

[slappy]

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?

[Dicey]

I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.

I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.

We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.

So how about if you go ahead and do you and stop being so critical of others who aren't you? As has been stated a number of times, you don't know anything about the people you're being so critical of.

Oh, wait! Unless it's actually you in the food line in a Tesla...

[Cassie]

Most people make financial mistakes sometime in their lives. Fire selling a car or house is probably not the best choice. We have used unemployment when young but luckily never needed food banks.  I was a social worker and what it taught me is unless you are very wealthy most people are one serious accident or disability away from not being able to work and their lives going down the crapper pretty fast. Some people lack empathy.

[dividendman]

Most people make financial mistakes sometime in their lives. Fire selling a car or house is probably not the best choice. We have used unemployment when young but luckily never needed food banks.  I was a social worker and what it taught me is unless you are very wealthy most people are one serious accident or disability away from not being able to work and their lives going down the crapper pretty fast. Some people lack empathy.

Yeah, it is about lack of empathy, but for the actual poor.

People have more empathy to keep the people with rich/luxurious lives in those conditions, than to help lift up the destitute. I guess because we generally have luxurious lives so we can relate to losing it.

We should be focused on the destitute and bringing them up to the bare minimum (like having a roof and some rice) rather than keeping folks in their teslas, fancy phones, fancy homes, etc.

[afox]

I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.

I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.

We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.

So how about if you go ahead and do you and stop being so critical of others who aren't you? As has been stated a number of times, you don't know anything about the people you're being so critical of.

Oh, wait! Unless it's actually you in the food line in a Tesla...

Jeez, tough crowd!  There is a better way than overspending and getting in the food line though! You too can LBYM (Live Below Your Means) and not have to worry about where your next meal is going to come from. LBYM will mean different things to different people and be impossible for some but I cant think of any scenario where someone could'nt have swapped the tesla for a large chuck of savings that would feed them for months....