Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by burkaman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of. "Why didn't you pick a higher-paying career, why did you go to college if you couldn't afford it, why not cut out all unnecessary expenses and stop seeing your friends".

Yes, all these people could probably make different choices to save a bit more money, but a) min-maxing life like that sucks, and b) most people constantly giving this advice didn't do that themselves. Is there a single person in America who:

1. At 17 years old ignored every single adult in their life and wisely chose to go to trade school instead of college because their 30-year projections of their own life showed loans might be too much of a burden

2. Stifled all personal ambition and passion and chose a career with the most objective earning potential

3. Cut off all friendships and moved to the lowest cost-of-living area where they could still find a job

4. Lived like an ascetic hermit until they had a large enough emergency fund in the bank

The answer is no, this person does not exist, if they did they would be miserable, and nobody wants to live in a world where this lifestyle is necessary for an average person to feel financially comfortable.

Edit: Also, when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?

I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary.

...as this author has almost systematically done. It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?

It's true, if you had only restated the facts it would not have been a lecture.

... which is... what they did.

>I am certain that people who want to read an article with this title are convinced that life has dealt them an unfair hand, and are willing to ignore or dismiss every example to the contrary.

Wow, this is unrealistically antagonistic. I think you need some qualifiers somewhere in that assertion. Anybody who simply "wants to read an article with this title"? Every example to the contrary?

The person you're replying to did not say "anybody". They said "people". In conversational English, the phrasing you quoted is not equivalent to "literally every single person who wants to read this article".

Maybe stop assuming absolutism where most people would never intend it? Interpret posts with the most charitable interpretation possible given what's written? (Y'know, like the HN guidelines require of us in order to keep conversations civil?)

> It's not really a "lecture" when I'm just re-stating the facts in the story, is it?

If that was indeed what you were doing, no. But that was not what you were doing.

> This feels a lot like the lectures these people are tired of.

How do you figure? The person you're replying to is pointing out that the majority of people profiled for the article seem to be doing just fine: they are saving at a decent (some at a more-than-decent) rate, and are living fairly comfortably. Lecturing them about something they're already doing seems pointless.

Only two of the people profiled in the article seem to actually be struggling, and might get lectures they're tired of. If the others are getting these lectures, then whoever is doing the lecturing clearly doesn't know how well they're actually doing!

You are replying to something that the grandparent did not actually write.

> when you describe $40,000 as a "low income", are you aware that the median income for a 20-24 year old is less than that?

Are you aware that something can be low even when there are other things that are even lower? Also I don't see where the parent mentioned "$40,000" at all, so maybe you clicked the reply button on the wrong post?

I can confirm that this does suck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com