Fun fact: 63% of US workers can't afford a $500 expense

It depends. You're supposed to use that debt in as smart way so that in the end, you have more money (liquid or in assets) than before, even taking into account the interest you pay.

Good reasons to take on debt: buy a house (no more money lost in rent + your house will keep increasing in value over time), renovate your house (increasing its value), get solar panels (less money spent on electricity + added value to your house),...

If your situation requires it, a reasonably sized car could be a good investment as well. Less money spent and time wasted on public transport (I'm a big fan of public transport though, don't get me wrong).

Even student debt could be seen as a good investment. But I just think higher education should be at least affordable for anyone from the get-go.

An oversized car that you don't really need and loses value as soon as you drive out of the dealership, is not a good reason to take on debt though.

Edit: note that I'm European and not super familiar with the debt culture in the US, where you need to have debt and pay it off for your credit score.

Some of these people might have family money (trust funds, inheritances, or gifts). Some might be older and more established (meaning they have more savings and less debt, bought their home long ago). Couples in general can afford more than single people. Childless people or people with older children who are now living on their own can afford more than people with kids at home. Some people don't talk about their moonlighting/side hustles.

And some people have debt.

it seems to be a global thing too, here in sweden we have people living in huge houses in the middle of nowhere with 2 cars and 3 kids and they have the audacity to wonder why they can't make their budget come together when prices for things rise slightly..

The problem with your logic is that you don't know the financial situation of "everyone i know and everyone around me"

That's not to say they are being smart and wise with their money or that they aren't struggling. But it's very easy to have only some context (their vacations, cars, and excess) and make bad inferences on their financial situations.

Have you asked these people, all of them, how they are managing this excess that feels impossible for you to meet yourself? You might find their financial situations are much more complex than appears and you aren't actually on the same playing field

My definition of a strong economy is one where people can afford things like food and rent with money still in the bank at the end of the month.
I don't give a fuck if a CEO could afford an extra Bentley this week, I want people to not starve.

Ah, good. You can see exactly when Reagan fucked everything for everyone but the top earners.

I agree with you, but still think this is still an overly divisive take. This isn’t all directed at you or your comment - just some general observations that I want to share.

The fact is the damn near all federal politicians and their policies are in favor of their corporate and high-net-worth donors.

Democrats had the full trifecta after the 2020 election, executive branch and both houses of congress. The didn’t raise the minimum wage. Didn’t rollback trump-era tax cuts. At the end of the day, failed to take decisive action to reverse the wealth/income inequality plaguing the US.

The same during Obama administration - which set the stage for one of the biggest upward wealth transfers in history in the post-2008 economy.

Sure, both of these D leaders have made select changes that are against R policies (healthcare and student loan debt). But they aren’t our saviors. They’re undeniably shills for their big donors. Period.

This is why term limits and donor transparency (I.e., legislating against the Citizens United ruling) are necessary changes. We need actual fucking leadership. Ones who aren’t afraid of making moves that will piss off big donors. Ones who only want to be in politics for a few years to actually make the country better and improve lives for the masses. We simply do not have that option right now, outside a few rare examples.

It can happen. We just can’t be complacent with the current shit, no matter which uniform they’re in. We need real change led by real leaders.

And to add to this it's not only the strength of the economy, but also the effect that the strong economy is having on workers as a plank of his campaign is my biggest gripe. For a good number of people in my region gross wages rose over the last year or two, but nowhere near enough to meet inflation. The base rent alone on non-subsidized units have more than doubled since the pandemic with an anemic response in wages or public assistance. In fact, the wage increases a lot of service sector jobs are seeing has had an unintended consequence of driving people off of public assistance because they're now over the federal guidelines despite below AMI.

Do you know what's in the "Inflation Reduction Act" that Biden and the Democrats passed? This dude kicked pharma companies in the nuts and it sounds like you have no idea.

Walmart jobs shouldn’t be minimum wage. I’m amazed they can find employees for what they pay, and the amount of work expected.