Okay, and? That doesn’t change a thing braxy said. What if you’ve been aware for years of the pot getting hotter and hotter and have had every desire to leave but don’t have the ability to? Those that have left were in a position in which they had the means to do so. Those that want to but can’t for any number of reasons (finances, family, health, etc. etc.) don’t have much choice.
My take is that there’s nothing wrong in saying leave, or people leaving. But I also agreed that it’s not possible for everyone, or not all want to - until perhaps something is too late.
I don’t understand why the people who can’t/won’t/don’t want to take offense from it, when it’s a viable option for many.
And your take is at best tone deaf and at worst disingenuous.
People take offense because no one says, well, if you have the opportunity, and you don’t like it, leave.
People just say, if you don’t like it, leave. While ignoring that leaving is a privilege for most (how many is many anyway when most are living paycheck to paycheck).
So, I find your comment offensive. This one in particular. I don’t need to read the rest of the comment thread because this one hot take was plenty enough.
Are most people honestly living from paycheck to another? I find that quite difficult to believe. Then again I’m Finnish and not American, so that’s probably why I can’t see the big picture from a local pov. Just seems… baffling.
If you make 5k and spend 4k a month, while having 5k savings, that’s not pay check to pay check. Close though, but what the term implies is 0 surplus, all that you make goes before next pay.
I mean I hear you I was liberal with the definition when I looked up the savings figures.
It’s not enough to move states to avoid right wing oppression. Which was really the point I was making. That most people can’t simply leave if they don’t like the situation.
What about the child rape victims who have zero agency? What about the disabled who are completely reliant on others? What about people who have court orders barring them from leaving for whatever reason? What about those for whom leaving would mean abandoning their children to an abusive spouse who has custody?
I could name reasons that’s not feasible for many, many people, but the bottom line is that may work for privileged people, but our responsibility is to care for all of us, and saying ‘sucks to be you’ is not a solution any of us should accept.
The people who are saying leave, are the ones seeing you as the frog slowly boiling, but not realizing it until it’s too late.
Of course it sucks. Of course you might have to build life anew, but a real life beats a kettle that’s heating up.
All I’m saying it’s not black and white, and many probably already left or are in the process.
Okay, and? That doesn’t change a thing braxy said. What if you’ve been aware for years of the pot getting hotter and hotter and have had every desire to leave but don’t have the ability to? Those that have left were in a position in which they had the means to do so. Those that want to but can’t for any number of reasons (finances, family, health, etc. etc.) don’t have much choice.
My take is that there’s nothing wrong in saying leave, or people leaving. But I also agreed that it’s not possible for everyone, or not all want to - until perhaps something is too late.
I don’t understand why the people who can’t/won’t/don’t want to take offense from it, when it’s a viable option for many.
And your take is at best tone deaf and at worst disingenuous.
People take offense because no one says, well, if you have the opportunity, and you don’t like it, leave.
People just say, if you don’t like it, leave. While ignoring that leaving is a privilege for most (how many is many anyway when most are living paycheck to paycheck).
So, I find your comment offensive. This one in particular. I don’t need to read the rest of the comment thread because this one hot take was plenty enough.
Are most people honestly living from paycheck to another? I find that quite difficult to believe. Then again I’m Finnish and not American, so that’s probably why I can’t see the big picture from a local pov. Just seems… baffling.
The median savings in the US is 5k. The median monthly expense is 4k.
That gives most people in the US a one month cushion. That’s paycheck to paycheck.
If you make 5k and spend 4k a month, while having 5k savings, that’s not pay check to pay check. Close though, but what the term implies is 0 surplus, all that you make goes before next pay.
I mean I hear you I was liberal with the definition when I looked up the savings figures.
It’s not enough to move states to avoid right wing oppression. Which was really the point I was making. That most people can’t simply leave if they don’t like the situation.
I forgot part of the equation.
Median savings 4k. Median debt is around 50k. Median monthly income 5k.
Most people are actually worse than pay check to pay check.
Some of us also want to cool down the pot instead. I’d rather swim in my pot than someone else’s.
What about the child rape victims who have zero agency? What about the disabled who are completely reliant on others? What about people who have court orders barring them from leaving for whatever reason? What about those for whom leaving would mean abandoning their children to an abusive spouse who has custody?
I could name reasons that’s not feasible for many, many people, but the bottom line is that may work for privileged people, but our responsibility is to care for all of us, and saying ‘sucks to be you’ is not a solution any of us should accept.