Marksideofthedoon t1_j9pbcbj wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:45 PM

Reply to comment by Anxious_Original_766 in [Discussion] How to start seeing the results you want. by Disciplineking

What do you think that phrase means then?

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pd2tb wrote on February 23, 2023 at 4:56 PM

I understand what the phrase means. But from the looks of it I just inferred that he made a decent salary but was living in a state of squalor from what he described. I was just saying if you had increased your salary you could also increase your means of living ( obviously not by the same percentage as that would be the lifestyle trap ). However, to be fair I dont have a lot of metrics of this guys situation (e.g., cost of living, etc)

Marksideofthedoon t1_j9pehb6 wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:05 PM

But that's all the phrase means. To live with expenses that amount to less than your income. How FAR beneath your means you decide to live simply equates to how much you're able to save.

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pfagb wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:10 PM

That’s such an extreme and literal take on it. If Bill Gates says that he’s living within his means who is going to think that he is living on the streets?? Language is not always meant to be taken literally, especially a common saying

Marksideofthedoon t1_j9pjy8g wrote on February 23, 2023 at 5:38 PM

Okay, then you tell me what it means.
I see nothing extreme about what I said at all, and since there's only two sides to the concept, I don't see how it could be taken any other way.
You either have less expenses than you have income, or you have more expenses than you have income.
The phrase speaks absolutely nothing about how far beneath or how far beyond your means you are living. You are simply injecting additional meaning where there is none from my point of view.
I genuinely do not see any other way to interpret the phrase.

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pq6rb wrote on February 23, 2023 at 6:17 PM

Firstly, I disagree w/ you. It's not either or. At a macro level, sure you either are within your means or not. However, my point is that "within your means" comes at varying degrees. That is a spectrum. You can either use 50 percentage of your income to support your lifestyle or 1%. That is a huge difference. If someone bringing in 100,000 a year says they live within their means. I do not think it is a bad bet that they mean they are spending 30% to 40% of their income to support themselves as opposed to 10%. I would argue it is in fact far more likely to be the higher figures than the lower. You don't need to be an economist to make that assumption across a generalized population - it's just common sense.

All this is to say, that when you hear the "live within your means" most people are going to picture a more moderate portion of their income going to their life cost as opposed to the bare minimum. So like I was saying, language is going to be interpreted by people as not so literal most of the times ( unless youre a robot)

Marksideofthedoon t1_j9prrim wrote on February 23, 2023 at 6:26 PM

what people picture and what the PHRASE means are two different things. You are creating a strawman argument for zero purpose other than to dig your heels in and be right.
We are not debating what people THINK. We are debating what the phrase MEANS.

Since you are intent on arguing a non-point to no clear end, I refuse to keep entertaining your obtuse interpretation of something that you've already conceded. Good day.

Good_Confection_3365 t1_j9tv633 wrote on February 24, 2023 at 3:02 PM

You're clearly taking his lifestyle as some sort of personal attack.

He is living within his means. Living within your means might look different to you and that's ok.