I'm sorry for coming tone-deaf for those who are in situations where they don't have the luxury to not pursue wealth. I added the blurb at the end, "But this all depends on your current situation; sometimes you do need to prioritize wealth and don’t have the luxury for goals that do otherwise, and that’s perfectly fine as well." Please let me know how to better phrase it to be more sympathetic.
By the way, I think it's really cool that you followed up your writing with a dialog on how to address criticisms that commenters brought up. Having something you wrote on the front page of a social media platform is a very vulnerable position to be in, and then going on to participate in a measured back-and-forth about your ideas is rare and refreshing. The discussion your ideas have created is much more interesting because you did so.
Thank you, I really do want to address those issues because they're important but I just don't know how to address them in a way that would do justice for all the backgrounds like you've all mentioned. The face of poverty is different for everyone and while I might think one approach would work, it wouldn't be appropriate for someone else.
One other nuance is the difference between wealth and income. Wealth is productive assets that generate further capital in one way or another. Income just gets used to pay for things.
Instead, I think it's basically ok to say that your point applies to people who have reached a certain threshold of stability and security in your life, and isn't meant to imply that people who haven't reached that threshold ought to be able to simply will themselves into doing the same thing.
But how can we better define that threshold? Where you live and circumstances you have are just so expansive to control in a few sentences. One person threshold can be much lower than someone else dealing with long term debt and family obligations but I didn't want to make it sound overly pessimistic by cutting them out in some way.
Comments
I'm sorry for coming tone-deaf for those who are in situations where they don't have the luxury to not pursue wealth. I added the blurb at the end, "But this all depends on your current situation; sometimes you do need to prioritize wealth and don’t have the luxury for goals that do otherwise, and that’s perfectly fine as well." Please let me know how to better phrase it to be more sympathetic.
By the way, I think it's really cool that you followed up your writing with a dialog on how to address criticisms that commenters brought up. Having something you wrote on the front page of a social media platform is a very vulnerable position to be in, and then going on to participate in a measured back-and-forth about your ideas is rare and refreshing. The discussion your ideas have created is much more interesting because you did so.
Thank you, I really do want to address those issues because they're important but I just don't know how to address them in a way that would do justice for all the backgrounds like you've all mentioned. The face of poverty is different for everyone and while I might think one approach would work, it wouldn't be appropriate for someone else.
One other nuance is the difference between wealth and income. Wealth is productive assets that generate further capital in one way or another. Income just gets used to pay for things.
Instead, I think it's basically ok to say that your point applies to people who have reached a certain threshold of stability and security in your life, and isn't meant to imply that people who haven't reached that threshold ought to be able to simply will themselves into doing the same thing.
But how can we better define that threshold? Where you live and circumstances you have are just so expansive to control in a few sentences. One person threshold can be much lower than someone else dealing with long term debt and family obligations but I didn't want to make it sound overly pessimistic by cutting them out in some way.