They’re covering for systemic political issues by blaming it on the individual, essentially covering for poverty wages and other problems related to income distribution. I don’t know why they do this, either. But that’s why this rubs many people the wrong way.
People don’t get into trouble because of avocado toast but depressed wages, soaring house prices, medical costs, etcetera. What the hell are people supposed to do if the minimum spending to survive is already too much for their meager income?
What the hell are people supposed to do if the minimum spending to survive is already too much for their meager income?
If one can’t cut their spending then they need to increase their income. Making coffee at home instead of getting starbucks, cooking instead of eating out and not taking a cab to travel short distances is all good financial advice.
In this meme they are dumb because they are broke but still eat out and catch a cab 3 blocks. Even when told of their irresponsible spending they make no adjustment.
…and it’s the bank’s fault and theres nothing the individual could do differently? I don’t buy that. Complaining about it on the internet is not going to help, that’s for sure. I know several people like this and they’re all notoriously bad with finances. Many of them even earn more than I do but they spend it all on expensive new cars, getting the newest smartphones, TVs and tech, frequent vacations abroad, homes that are way out of their budget, streaming services, clothes, ordering takeout etc.
That message is written by some 24 year old who gets paid to do 3 social media posts each day on behalf of said bank but is in no way involved in running the bank itself. Don’t follow Chase on twitter and block people who retweet their posts on Lemmy. That should help a little.
Sure. And while they wait for that miracle they can also take steps towards personally easing their situation. Broken banking sector is not the sole reason for people’s financial struggles.
Historically it’s not miracles that brought banking regulation (unless you believe that bit abut Jesus in the temple), it’s trajedy, like 1929 and WW2.
it probably won’t get that bad though because these days they’ll keep bailing them out, their failures paid for by your economic future - gradually enough so that it’s not as bad in concentration as 1929, just spread it out into long term inflation so that it’s harder to notice.
All the whiile people can keep tightening their belts.
And, I’m not saying people shouldn’t; being frugal is good, but, once you’ve switched to your frugal lifetyle, it’s increasingly hard to make the next round of cuts, and the next one and the next . . .
I’m talking more about the UK that i know more about than other countries, i think the USA has some similarities - but all countries do have important differences.
There used to be a lot more regulation - both intra and inter nationally - that limited how much they could do in terms of international and mortgage investment.
Since deregulation banks have typically shifted into investing more into the housing market and to some degree overseas (hard to observe the net position though, especially with multinational corps. and banks).
Essentially I’d argue this “crowded out” domestic capital intensive industrial sectors. And generally reduced the savings multiplier in favour of more bubbly type investments - or household sector.
The conequence was that the “job” of the banking sector used to be to fund domestic (business) investment and growth - and to try not to debauch the currency too badly - at least in the post war period. They had to manage the balance between bubbles , stable investments and their non-performing loan rate, and maintain reserve requirements and central bank deposits as a buffer against bank runs .
But since 70s/deregulation they just invest more wherever they like - with less constraints in place to protect the whole system.
They seem to be able to get bail outs without major consequences for management when they fuck up. (This was probaably the case in the 50s and 60s, but the other rules prevented them from fucking up too disastrously.
Even back before the 30s when there was much less specific regulation there was still the “gold standard” to keep them in check to some degree.
I’m not. What am I missing here?
They’re covering for systemic political issues by blaming it on the individual, essentially covering for poverty wages and other problems related to income distribution. I don’t know why they do this, either. But that’s why this rubs many people the wrong way.
People don’t get into trouble because of avocado toast but depressed wages, soaring house prices, medical costs, etcetera. What the hell are people supposed to do if the minimum spending to survive is already too much for their meager income?
If one can’t cut their spending then they need to increase their income. Making coffee at home instead of getting starbucks, cooking instead of eating out and not taking a cab to travel short distances is all good financial advice.
People know that. They’re broke, not dumb
In this meme they are dumb because they are broke but still eat out and catch a cab 3 blocks. Even when told of their irresponsible spending they make no adjustment.
A strawman
…and it’s the bank’s fault and theres nothing the individual could do differently? I don’t buy that. Complaining about it on the internet is not going to help, that’s for sure. I know several people like this and they’re all notoriously bad with finances. Many of them even earn more than I do but they spend it all on expensive new cars, getting the newest smartphones, TVs and tech, frequent vacations abroad, homes that are way out of their budget, streaming services, clothes, ordering takeout etc.
The problem is the tone of the message. Chase isn’t giving solid financial advice, here. They’re creating a strawman of “bad with money”
That message is written by some 24 year old who gets paid to do 3 social media posts each day on behalf of said bank but is in no way involved in running the bank itself. Don’t follow Chase on twitter and block people who retweet their posts on Lemmy. That should help a little.
Why is Chase spending money to piss off customers on Xitter?
Why are you asking me?
just increase your income, dummy! how have we never thought of that‽
we can also solve mass shootings in the US. if one can’t survive shootings, they need to stop getting shot.
Yeah, who would have ever thunk of that /s
…or spend less.
This has nothing to do with mass shootings.
hear that homeless people? you spend too much!
They could ask for a competent banking sector that works in the interests of the whole economy too.
Unthinkable.
Sure. And while they wait for that miracle they can also take steps towards personally easing their situation. Broken banking sector is not the sole reason for people’s financial struggles.
Historically it’s not miracles that brought banking regulation (unless you believe that bit abut Jesus in the temple), it’s trajedy, like 1929 and WW2.
it probably won’t get that bad though because these days they’ll keep bailing them out, their failures paid for by your economic future - gradually enough so that it’s not as bad in concentration as 1929, just spread it out into long term inflation so that it’s harder to notice. All the whiile people can keep tightening their belts.
And, I’m not saying people shouldn’t; being frugal is good, but, once you’ve switched to your frugal lifetyle, it’s increasingly hard to make the next round of cuts, and the next one and the next . . .
The hypocrisy. Plus a bit between the lines about the changing role of the banking sector in the economy over the last 40-50 years.
How has banking changed roles in the economy?
I’m talking more about the UK that i know more about than other countries, i think the USA has some similarities - but all countries do have important differences.
There used to be a lot more regulation - both intra and inter nationally - that limited how much they could do in terms of international and mortgage investment. Since deregulation banks have typically shifted into investing more into the housing market and to some degree overseas (hard to observe the net position though, especially with multinational corps. and banks). Essentially I’d argue this “crowded out” domestic capital intensive industrial sectors. And generally reduced the savings multiplier in favour of more bubbly type investments - or household sector.
The conequence was that the “job” of the banking sector used to be to fund domestic (business) investment and growth - and to try not to debauch the currency too badly - at least in the post war period. They had to manage the balance between bubbles , stable investments and their non-performing loan rate, and maintain reserve requirements and central bank deposits as a buffer against bank runs .
But since 70s/deregulation they just invest more wherever they like - with less constraints in place to protect the whole system. They seem to be able to get bail outs without major consequences for management when they fuck up. (This was probaably the case in the 50s and 60s, but the other rules prevented them from fucking up too disastrously. Even back before the 30s when there was much less specific regulation there was still the “gold standard” to keep them in check to some degree.