• bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    $30k extra would make a huge difference, though. I get the point you’re trying to make, but your example is flawed. People shouldn’t have to choose between eating well and not having to work until they die. A more effective way to re-frame this would be “Why does lunch cost $28?”

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      would make a huge difference

      would make jack fuck. If there is no inflation (lol) and you want to scrounge enough money to have something to just about survive, you can start saving 30k per year right now, and in 53 years you will meet your goal.
      The realistic question is “will I be alive in 53 years” and realistic answer for most of us is “what the fuck of course no”. But if you’re a toddler and have some stupid ideas about the existance of the future still, then yeah, you could start asking why does lunch costs $28, or why do you need to not eat now to eat later, shouldn’t be there some smarter system about it.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sounds like you know fuck all about finance. “If there’s no inflation.” Uh, yeah. That 30k a year is beating inflation by a LOT in any sort of investment.

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I didn’t want to calculate compound interests and whatever the fuck else. It doesn’t matter, if it’s 53 years, 60 years or 40 years. If you stop eating now so you can start eating in 40 years, your life wasn’t worth living anyway.