> That and the assumption is absurd. As if people buy $5 coffees and avocado toast literally every day.

Who cares? The assumption behind that assumption was already nonsense.

The "personal responsibility" and "by your bootstraps" and "you gotta start at the bottom" crowd are assuming we could buy what's really essential if we cut back all luxuries. Even $10/hr is enough to get moving if you don't waste it, right?

The math doesn't support that.

You could buy Starbucks for every breakfast; McDonald's for every lunch; buy a new iPhone, iPad, and Macbook every cycle. What does all that cost you? Like $12,000 a year. Say you cut out all of that and focus your money on what's really important. Does that extra $12,000 guarantee you can make rent, see the doctor, go to college, and start your retirement fund? Not even fucking close. You're lucky if it solves your housing problem alone.

> There was a tweet i saw recently that said "if your financial advice starts off with saying quit buying $5 coffees daily then you already assume i make more money than I actually do"

Exactly. These are income problems, not spending problems. Period. You can't even begin to credibly blame people for spending rather than income until they're passing like $60,000 a year.