all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 1 month ago (1 child)

The fun part is if you actually do enough of these things, it effects the economy negatively, so they'll find ways to force you to spend anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 73 points 1 month ago (9 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I get the meme but dang you guys leave the water running??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Yeah thats super weird to me

    Ill wet the brush, shut it off, put the paste on, wet that, shut it off, brush, then turn the water on to wash my mouth and the brush and thats it. Why would you keep it running the whole time??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Don't you hold the flusher down while you take a wizz???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Then they circle back like this generation is killing (name your industry) because of the above.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Last I heard it was millennials killing [industry]. We conquered Applebee's and fabric softener. Have the younger folks gotten in on the act?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    "cook at home" is a solution to grocery prices? WTF are you going to cook?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    For anyone struggling with food prices, first, I empathize. I've been there. It fucking sucks. Second, when desperate, I put together a plan much like the following, and it helped me get through some hard times.

    USA prices 2026-09-16

    26 oz salt: $1, 0 calories, 0 protein

    200 lb dry beans: $120, 300000 Cal, 20000g protein

    200 lb rice: $50 $100, 330000 Cal, 2400g protein

    360 tablets multivitamin: $37.50

    Annual cost: $258.50 Daily calories: 1726 (suitable for a sedentary person.) Daily protein: 61 g

    You can get even higher protein and lower cost if you have access to bulk soybeans. Multiply by whatever values you like to hit your calorie or protein needs.

    You don't have to eat JUST this. But if this is the majority of your meals, you have enough to survive, and in the US, you'll actually be healthier than most of the people around you.

    EDIT: updated the numbers because I'm an idiot who forgot that you need 4, 50lb bags to get to 200lb, rather than 2.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    instant noodles with a side of disappointment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    People keep saying we should eat the rich, but they'd probably taste awful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I live close to work, and have never lived alone - but living close to economic opportunities costs more, not less. Not having to drive saves some money, sure, but probably not enough to make up for the difference in housing cost.

    Cooking from scratch at home is more a quality of life thing, I do that so we can eat well & reasonably healthy. The more money we make, the more I cook from ingredients. Have a garden now, even - it's a luxury of having space for one, not a cost saving measure.

    Nothing you can do on the expense side will ever make up for the depressed wages - productivity and costs have increased much faster than pay, and nobody can save their way out of that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    For real, I’m always impressed when home cooks can get it done cheaper than restaurants (who are buying ingredients at wholesale, cook everything in batches, etc). Most can’t. People look at me like I’m crazy when I say this, but there’s a reason working class people get so much takeout: it’s cheaper than cooking, when you factor in the time spent cooking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Yes. Say you make $20 an hour and can get a takeout meal for $20 or ingredients for $15 and cook for an hour to make something better and healthier. I enjoy cooking, and am in a multi income household, but if you need to maximize work hours to make it, better to spend more time on what you are good at & pays the most.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    The only way is to destroy wealth inequality, and the only way to do that is to destory the oligarch billionaire class.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I find it effective to ignore them until they go away. Don’t respond to their calls or texts. Stop inviting them over. Just cut them off. Actually try to stop giving them money when they beg for it. They’re so needy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I'm.... not sure that's gonna work for billionaires, though. lol

    Although technically the second time I said we should "destory" them, which ignoring them I guess would do, so maybe you have a point after all XD

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think they were drawing a comparison to how people tell you to deal with "friends" who are toxic/self-centered/variegated-addict types.

    You know, cause all your friends are poor, so it's okay to cut them off. But when a billionaire begs for money and you tell them no, suddenly it's all "so you're trying to hurt the economy?!"

    ...the economy has already been grievously wounded... by the billionaires.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago

    Yea. They’ve always been saying this to poor people just now you’re one of them.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    That's then followed by a bunch of articles how geen Gen Z or Gen Alpha are ruining supermarkets and car dealers by biking everywhere and only eating rice and beans.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    And then uninformed members of Gens Z and Alpha make reels about how Boomers and Millennials need to retire so they can get access to higher-paying jobs.

    Culture war nonsense perpetuated to distract from any class-conscious understanding of why things suck.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    Also playing video games and watching tv shows helps.

    Its all bread and circuses since the roman empire.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago

    Advices are like: Why are you poor? I advise you to go an atm and get some money

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago

    Then they bitch no ones eating out anymore, or why is Gen Z not buying houses. Etc. Its fucking crushing us under capitalism and we can't take it anymore.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago

    How does cooking at home even fix grocery costs? I'm already doing that. It's the cost and quality of ingredients that's the problem, bit to mention avoiding any of the US products in anticipation of the next version of diarrhea-lettuce or cancer-beef.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I don't get the grocery one. Surely the entire point of them is to cook at home? Otherwise you would be getting takeaways or something which isn't groceries.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I think they’re getting at cooking more or less from scratch rather than buying tons of processed garbage, but I had to reach far to arrive at that conclusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Like milling your own grain? If people are doing that, based as fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    i mean, i don't go that far (i'm a shitty baker and that would make me worse) but i could always use a new hobby

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The main reason I haven't is that its cheaper to buy flour than grain. At least unless I am willing to order it in truly vast quantities. Found a couple of sacks of animal feed (barley) that are good priced but then delivery ruins any savings until you buy quite a few of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    i've only done it once (i have a friend who insists her homeground flour is better. she's a good enough baker to know so i'm sure there's more than ego to her statement. she let me come over and try the equipment one day she was processing wheat). milling stuff just feels so satisfying. even just breaking out the mortar and pestle for spices makes a day better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I have always lived frugally. I buy used clothes, I cook often and boil bones to make stock, I repair my car when I can, and so much so if I’m pinched, it’s the market, and it needs to improve.

    You know, reflecting on history, the Boomers tried communes because of the same exact market conditions. So, it’s already been done. And the reality is… the rich have never had such rates of returns as ever before so yeah, fuck it. Either improve or heads might start rolling.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Unpopular take: This can be summed up as 'use less resources' and it has more to do with previous generations over consumption becoming normalized.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I believe we should live sustainably and modestly. But I also despise being preached to about sustainability and moderation by rich assholes who are the epitome of greed, gluttony and overindulgence. Good advice coming from an hypocritical, condescending jerk will not be well-received.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    How can any of these, except debt and maybe grocery costs, be summed up as "use less resources"?

    What resources is an average individual "over-consuming" to make their housing more expensive and their commute more onerous?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Housing: square foot per person doubled 1970-today. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/housing1.png

    Food: Eating food not made at home increased 66% from the 70s to today. (restaurant labor = resources, you are paying for someone's livlyhood) https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/28125/106446-chart-image-file.png Caloric intake from 1950 to today has increased by 25%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-per-capita-caloric-supply?country=%7EUSA

    Cars are incredibly resource intensive and long commutes didn't exist or were very uncommon before cars. We have become accustomed to these resources intensive habits and built our infrastructure around them. This moved the bar of normal resource utilization.

    I think this illustrates the trend I'm talking about. People today use more resources than they used to in lots of ways, we've become accustomed to this way of life because previous generations have normalized it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I appreciate you pulling up sources, especially if these are things you went out of the way to collect fresh.

    It'd require more research on my end but I do have questions.

    I question how many people were actually actually getting new single-family homes built for those time periods. Are the rates of new home construction similar between the 70s and 2016-18 for this data? Are more people moving out to further places with cheaper land to buy new houses? Or are a smaller number of richer people buying bigger houses?

    And, regarding food, the graph does say

    Measured in kilocalories per person per day. This indicatesthe calories that are available for consumption, but doesnot necessarily measure the number of calories actually consumed, since it doesn't factor in consumer waste.

    Which brings up the question of whether the increase in calories can be mapped to the increase in fast food, which are insanely calorie dense for the amount of nutrition they contain. Just the amount of processing in many foods cranks up caloric count.

    Fast food is something I will agree is an example of normalized behavior, where the 90s cemented "fast food" as a cheap dining option when that has not been really true in years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Look, I'm not making any claims on nutrition vs caloric intake. I'm using calories available per person as an analog for the amount of resources an individual consumes today vs in the past. A calorie is literally a unit of energy, so we literally have more food energy available to us today than previous generations. That's the argument.

    As a society have normalized increased resource utilization. This has happened largely with a decrease in the cost of these resources until recently. There is no reason to believe the trend of increasing resource utilization and decreasing resource cost would hold over time. Our generation got unlucky that finite resources finally started to show up in resource costs. It was like a game of musical chairs and the music stopped around the mid 2000s and generations that had not established wealth at that point were left without a chair.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's an unpopular take ... they said it up front.

    The term "average" is you adding words to the original comment that weren't there to begin with. At best "average" is too subjective and nebulous to be meaningful without you providing a very clear definition of your intended context, at worst, it's loaded terminology.

    I don't want to imply that I know specifically what that person meant by over-consumption regarding housing and transport, however, it could easily be applied to situations like ...

    ~ The trend in some parts of the world to build ever larger houses despite people having smaller families / fewer children.

    ~ People choosing to live alone, even when they have other options available like living with family or having roommates (as per the image).

    ~ People living alone in general, but choosing bigger homes with multiple rooms / bathrooms that were intended for families and people with roommates, leaving the additional space / room largely unused.

    For transportation, the overconsumption side of that is often based on the argument that people are buying vehicles when they don't need one, buying larger and less efficient vehicles than they should, driving solo instead of carpooling, or avoiding taking public transport when it's available. Specifically the argument about moving closer to work in relation to over-consumption is, and I'm guessing here, addressed more at people who choose to live further away from work for reasons like "they don't like that part of town" or because they'd rather drive than take public transport / walk.

    In the USA, for instance, there has traditionally been a very heavy stigma against "poor people", and so for a certain percentage of people who actually are poor or very close to it, over-consumption is a mechanism they will employ to mask their economic status. For example, wearing designer clothes or at least knock-offs, buying a new expensive vehicle they can't really afford, moving to a more expensive neighborhood for appearance, driving to work instead of using public transportation or walking, etc.

    Obviously we can all cherry pick anecdotes where these things don't apply and it's easy to assume that how things are where I live are the same all over everywhere even though that's not the case, so keep that in mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    "Unpopular take: all black people should be slaves." Preceding a statement with "unpopular take" doesn't insulate the statement from inspection or critique. "Unpopular" is a measure of popularity, not validity and I was questioning the validity of their statement.

    Yes, I added average because "average" is the only way to make sense of their vague talk. Who would the subject be if not younger generations when they talked about previous generations normalizing over-consumption. Who is exhibiting these normalized, ove-consumptive behaviors if not some average, representative sample of the younger generation? If they were making a statement about and to some narrow band of western, upper-middleclass white person, they should claim that.

    Obviously we can all cherry pick anecdotes where these things don't apply and it's easy to assume that how things are where I live are the same all over everywhere even though that's not the case, so keep that in mind.

    No one has made any citation of statistics or data, and I'm the one asking for clarification of dubiously-valid claims. So you and the previous commenter are the only ones providing (or, in the other commenter's case, hinting at) some cherry-picked anecdotes about the consumption habits of these still-undefined subjects who are habitually over-consuming their way to poverty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago

    So I can clearly tell you don't take criticism well at all. All I can say is jumping further down the well of logical fallacy doesn't actually clarify what you meant by average, and really only suggests that you did intend for it to be loaded. No point in spending any time further, other than I hope people reading see through your charade.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    I dont think this is an unpopular take. You are spot on.

    Only thing I’d add is:

    Both the wealthy and Previous generations’ over consumption has been normalized. And in the case of the wealthy it has been glorified.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Most people on earth have never even had a chance to overconsume due to economic inequality. Only certain people in previous generations were even able to overconsume, and always a small minority of every generation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Some of these are based around good ideas, but the overall post is not intended to be useful advice.

    Realistic version: Cook at home instead of ordering out, don't buy expensive things that you don't need (especially on credit), and move to somewhere with a lower cost of living. These are all obvious things that we know about. But they do work to keep expenses down.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    #GuillotineParty

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Not humorous.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    What this tells people is "fuck off, you are on your own. Government doesn't work for people like you."

    But that isn't how Democracy is supposed to function. It is actually supposed to develop and implement policy to improve the quality of life for the general public - especially the broad swaths of people who work for a living.

    It's also insane that the advice is to "get a roommate" at the same time leaders are crying that people in their 20s and 30s aren't having enough kids. Guess what? If you make people live like they are too young and broke to have kids for the first 25 years of adulthood, they will.... Not have kids. Shocking.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    My favorite is conservatives complaining about avocado toast. I am anti-consumerist myself but it still just reads funny.

    "You are not poor! You are just financially in a situation where, as a working class person in one of the wealthiest countries on earth and its history, buying avocado spread once a month can bankrupt you into lifelong debt. Economy is fine!"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Nah I think moving closer to work is actually a solution. Unless your job could happen remotely, in which case it's a band-aid for a solution the company is refusing to provide.

    And uh, cooking at home should be the default anyway? Is it not for some people? The price difference is so big, it's never made sense to see eating outside or ordering delivery as anything other than a treat to yourself.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    What better advice is there? The government doesn't control the price of housing or food. Sure the "war" in Iran isn't helping, Trump isn't helping with his tariffs but in general the better advice is to stop complaining and to do something about one's own life.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    No, the advice is to hold government accountable for helping ordinary citizens instead of making our lives worse. You can't fucking bootstrap your way out of systemic poverty. This is not a failure of the individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Except it boils down to two options: a) find a job with better pay or b) no, basically a. But the AI layoffs added 10k from a several organizations so coding is pinched. And since GenAI is blocking entry-level employment because “we gave you a ‘helper’” no one is moving up. The job market is stagnant because AI is causing a pause on new reqs.

    I guess you could side hustle, but that isn’t an assured pump to your current income. AND that depends on your market, urban is okay, suburban is stagnant, and rural … well, you might be losing money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment