So here’s the line in the sand and the trap as well-
The only way to “win” against the system is to not play.
But if you don’t play, you can’t get the prizes for playing. So you can say fuxk credit and it’s predatory ways of funneling wealth from the less wealthy to the wealthy and acting as socioeconomic segregation- and not take loans or use credit cards. You can say fuxk predatory telecoms and corrupt car companies and bloated monoliths like Amazon and Facebook and such. You can refuse to pay into a 401 and play by the rules and fight them at every turn and not be part of the problem- but the way the system gets people to self subjugate is by offering table scraps.
No credit, some jobs, owning a house, having a certain lifestyle like your peers- these things tend to become harder or impossible to get.

Do not misunderstand. I’m not saying life is hard and live with it.
I’m saying life is hard and you don’t have to live with it if you can change it and make it less hard, but until then you can only live in the world you live in.
Look, they are forgiving student loans.the path appears to be moving towards free education.
There are people with homes and families for the last 10+ years who paid what were still at the time prohibitive costs for a degree to finance those lives.
Had those people waited, they could have gotten the degree for less or maybe free, had less struggle- but then those 10+ years of their lives wouldn’t have benefitted right?

It’s the way it is and some people have to work twice as hard or more to get the same things as everyone else. We can and should try to change that and I’m not saying don’t complain or that it is wrong to call out the inequity. Do. Call it out. Fight it. But while you do that- if you want this stuff- for yourself, be smart and get to it.

This is the reality you live in. You can change it, it’s worth trying and I’m not saying don’t- but until and if that change ever comes- you live here. Your road is harder to things like home ownership.
You can’t go bad groceries and buy a 3 bedroom in a major population center with your sole income. That’s why I think it’s critical for younger people especially to realize the game and know the rules and how to play. If you say “they were given this and I wasn’t and that’s not fair..” and then just leave it at that- you’ll likely never get it.
Yes, work to make these things more accesible for everyone- but while you do that, consider what you’ll do in the meantime or if that doesn’t happen in your lifetime. No one’s gonna give you the boomer lifestyle on a platter like so many boomers got. You want it, get clever and get serious about getting it.

That being said I also want to challenge this “pffft- not spending $6 a day isn’t going to help” attitude. Yes. It can. You were born into when you were born. Post WW2 explosive growth, 80’s excesses and day trading, the “digital revolution,” the “dot com” days- whatever- maybe you missed it. And you weren’t 27 and thinking on the future with a good job 40+ years ago when you could buy a home in many major metro areas on a blue collar wage and gas wasn’t twenty five cents or even a dollar or two a gallon when you were the age to drive.
You missed it because you weren’t born or were a baby. Tough shit. We all missed things that could have benefitted us.

Now the entire old farts blaming kids for not being able to afford a house etc. is ridiculous. Buying a house most places at 20 or 30 isn’t as easy as it was for grandpa.
It isn’t feasible for many. So I agree there and I agree that “lattes and apps” aren’t the major financial hurdle for young people today- the pay is shit, advancement is stagnant across the board and expenses are insane. Inflation the last couple of years alone is enough to wipe out 5,10 years of advancement in earnings for many people even if they did get raises and promotions.

That is, and should likely still be, more than enough for a down payment on any reasonable house even in 40+ years.
It’s also a not so bad nest egg.
That would come from simply taking that coffee money and saving it, and then just adding another $83 a month. Less than a common phone or internet bill.
So yes, a few dollars a day is a paltry sum over a few years or a decade, and even over a lifetime it isn’t anything impressive- but used wisely such as in the compounding gains of a 401k or in a thoughtful investment, those few dollars can literally make you a millionaire in retirement.

1. You could potentially save thousands in taxes due to pre tax status of those earnings.
2. If you have other contributions or balances these numbers change quickly.
3. If you have and use employer match it can drastically change.
How much? If you put $1000 a year from 20-30 you’d have the $16k, but if you get a job with matching on JUST the first 2%, then keep doing this from 30-40 you’d have over $60k at forty.
Compare that to the $20,000 you’d save at $1000 a year by just holding onto the money for that same time. That’s nearly 3x the amount! And guess what! It compounds even more with time.
So for example, if you placed your coffee money into the 401k from 20-30 without any match or other contributions, then got a job with 2% match at 30, and put your $1000 a year coffee money AND placed another $1000 a year- at the assumed rates, at 65 years old you’d have over A MILLION DOLLARS.

I think great leaders are often women. I think having female leaders does give us better odds at having leaders who represent the population better and who have different perspectives.
I am all for female leadership.
Men, women, other- all Can be great leaders but all can be shit leaders too. It isn’t gender that decides the quality of a leader or their policies.
Don’t forget there are women who oppose abortions and feminism too. Women aren’t a monolith and it is ignorant and sexist to suggest otherwise.

Well- check the gender ratios in the key “battle ground states” and such. Remember- living in some areas Can make your Vite count more or not at all really. But key battle ground states tend to have a slight female majority population.
Hillary Clinton didn’t get the votes to be president because women didn’t want her to be president. They weren’t the only ones- but again- when you hold a majority vote as a group, if we lump everyone in that group together- the majority has the most power.
Of course that’s a bit ridiculous no?
I mean- women have diverse political views and values and… lumping all women together like they’d all vote the same is as silly as… saying that all women would make peaceful leaders.

Now consider this- roughly half- actually a little over half- the US population (and global population coincidentally) are female.
So the laws and systems and officials that build and shape those systems- women in the US have had to vote for over a century.
If women were some monolith of perfect thinkers and each woman voted- they’d have a narrow majority in every election. Meaning that the state of affairs in America and the history up until now is… well… women have had an equal days overall in our democracy.
Hillary Clinton was not elected president… but half the country and then a bit more are female. What’s more- when you look….

Thusly even where we can demonstrate some reduction in violence perpetrated by females, even if we rule out that most modern societies and even many older societies discouraged female aggression as a social dynamic- the violence perpetrated by women through proximity to power cannot he ignored when discussing nature.
In simple modern terms- think of the classic: man insults woman in bar and woman tells man “my boyfriend will kick your ass…” or the classic: man commits/attempts murder at the request of a potential or perceived love interest eg: “if you kill my husband, we can be together…”

Put simply, even removing cultural factors that might lead men to feel protective towards women or want to impress or gain favor with women, ignoring that in many societies the gender dynamics tend to raise men to be more adept or comfortable in violence, generally the male body is better suited for untrained combat, and generally speaking it is safer to have others fight for you Vs. Fighting yourself. So the simple desire to mate is enough even in “pre society” days to encourage heterosexual or reproductive men to attempt to protect or gain favor with women and thusly even in most patriarchal societies women carry access to some degree of a male mates power or status and ability- thusly men have traditionally fought each other over women, so even in societies where men do not seek consent, using one’s brains it is possible to engineer conflict between a man and another by leveraging sexuality.

I’ve seen a woman stab a man with a 5” metal high heel on the Vegas strip. We don’t need hypotheticals or historical examples, observing girls and women in modern society oils tell anyone with awareness/self awareness that women are just as capable of violence as men and can be prone to emotionally triggered violence or violence to secure what they want. Society and conditioning tend to simultaneously discourage female violence, both through gender expectations as well as putting a heavy value on looks and civility- things fighting generally don’t help cultivate; as well as through those same gender dynamics, providing proximity to power through heterosexual response in men.

Usually there is a down payment of several meals, some small gifts, then reciting payments such as experiences and food.
If you wish to convert your lease to a long term contract you will generally have to buy out the lease, it usually costs two rings and some other various expenses. You’ll need to fill out the paperwork with the government and pay the registration and transfer fees as well in order for the lease conversion to be legally recognized generally.
Overall the lease is probably the most expensive long term option unless you get a particularly low maintenance unit or a roll back or something like that, so like any contract you do need to consider for your needs and circumstances what option is best between lease or rent etc.
if you aren’t sure consult a tax specialist and your attorney.

Long term lease. The price is generally higher than rental and the terms are… they can be confusing and if you aren’t careful you can really get screwed on the deal. Hidden fees, hidden clauses, vague language and double speak and all sorts of binding conditions… but the lease is not only the most popular and socially acceptable option in courtship, but it has much of the flexibility of a rental while not carrying the stigma but also holds many of the desirable aspects or purchase while avoiding the legal complications and general repugnance of buying.

Of course those are general concepts that apply often in renting vs. buying.
We are talking about humans here though, so while I will not and don’t think anyone should shame two willing adults who enter into a services for money contract of such a nature for whatever their individual reasons are- obviously the buying of humans is a repugnant practice.
And in context- why? It isn’t like the only options to find love are to rent or buy a partner. Are you forgetting the age old and traditional system that has none of the legal woes of buying and is far more socially acceptable than renting a partner in general? Are you forgetting the way that probably the majority of long term partners in western society conduct their relations- not some superficial rental or repugnant purchase but….

As pointed out earlier, if you rent a front loader and you use it frequently but it gets to a point where it is no longer able to function as well or starts being temperamental or is old and weathered, if you get tired of it or if you see another newer or different model or type of equipment that seems like you’d want to try it- a rental is often the better option.
Buying does have advantages too. Over time you can become familiar with a particular unit and grow attached either sentimentally or because you find it reliable or pleasant. When you rent you never know if a particular model will be available when you want it or if it will be replaced at some point by the rental agency, when you buy you can be sure that with care you can have access to the unit long term.
There are also potential advantages to housing and being responsible for a units upkeep since you have constant access and can maintain it to your standards and know the quality of care it is receiving.

If you buy a front loader you must provide oil changes and maintenance, pay for paint and cleaning, and at the end of the day you must house the front loader at your cost in money and space. If you rent a front loader, it shows up on the job as needed and when the job is done you do not need to house it or change the oil or clean it or worry about it at all. It is there on demand and gone when not desirable. Between a rental or purchase of a front loader, you would need to feed both with fuel generally- but on the rental you only need to worry about the fuel consumed while the front loader is in use. So there is a freedom to renting that can offset the premium generally incurred, and don’t forget that depending on the rental agency you often can rent the front loader and house it on site for as long as you plan to use it, so you don’t always HAVE to return a rental daily, but you generally have the option of overnight or extended use isn’t in the plan or budget.

There are various tax and other legal concerns to consider, and depending on your situation and its specifics, you might find that between renting and buying one option presents a clear advantage on the backend.
Specific to this example we must also consider the differences in the asset types.
In general a rented asset usually holds minimal upkeep by the renter. A bought asset however is solely the buyers responsibility. Consumable items, storage, transportation, maintenance, repairs, anything the asset may require for proper and desirable function becomes the buyers responsibility. With a rental, most major expenses are not the buyers responsibility unless they are incurred by negligence or some other “at fault” action by the renter.

Long term we usually reach a point where buying becomes cheaper than renting over an “infinite” or long term span- but we have to consider two factors. The first is that rentals are non committal beyond the term.
In other words, when an asset depreciates, if you find a model that suits your needs or tastes better, or if a particular unit becomes a liability- you can generally rent another unit and change as the need or whim strikes. When you purchase, you are invested and to be rid of an asset you must sell it- which if an asset depreciates or is a liability can be difficult. Some types of assets are also more difficult to trade in the market or have fewer potential buyers which can make sales not worth the effort.

Indeed. And it is followed closely behind by a “and you better hope customs doesn’t find them when you cross the border” joke.