When the dream of the house bursts

Now I have taken a night's sleep to see if I misread the posts through the evening lens and if they look better now.

Hm. No!

No. But putting the accumulation of capital above one's own well-being is undignified.

I don't know what world you live in. But a working student who saves for 10 months to buy his first kitchen is not a "capital accumulator." He is simply a consumer credit refuser—in his situation completely right to do so. Everything else is a leap into the dark hoping it won't go too deep. But that would still be the "dignified" solution, or how should one understand you?

Once basic needs are met, money is the least important thing in the world.

This view is messed up on so many levels that I don't even know where to start. Maybe with an extreme example: According to this statement, state welfare in the sense of human dignity has to suffice by providing every needy person with housing, food rations, clothing, and emergency medical care. They don't need money at all. It’s not important since basic needs are met.

Freedom of choice? Social participation? Fulfillment of life goals? Not basic needs—all undignified to save capital for. Everything must come from cash flow. What, some don’t earn enough?

By the way, capital is not only money. The kitchen I buy with savings is capital usable to me. The house, of course, that many here build. Land. Education. But all that costs money. Oh, look at that.

By the way, paying off a loan is nothing other than a saving action following the purchase aka "capital accumulation" in your diction. That for logical consistency of your statement. Or have you lived your whole life only off your cash flow, never paid off a loan, never saved anything?

No. But if you have too little money, you have existential fears. Then acquiring money has the highest priority—to obtain food, a roof over your head, or clothes on your body. Then, and only then, do I understand the urge to acquire capital. Once basic needs are met, money is the least important thing in the world.

Maybe you only wanted to say that money is taken too seriously in our society today and other values are underrepresented. You could have put it that way, and I would have fully agreed.

As you write it, it sounds like the spoiled-of-wealth standard clichés from the neoliberal grab bag.

It is indeed some form of "accumulated capital" that generates income and thus frees from the worries that make money appear important. But first, you have to build it. So much for capital accumulation, worries, and dignity.

Maybe you just wanted to say that money is taken too seriously in our society today and other values are underrepresented. If you had written it that way, I would have fully agreed.

That was exactly my intention.

Then just say so! The mixing with dignity and basic needs leads somewhere completely different. I can agree with that.

Actually, it doesn't. You yourself described how the state has to ensure basic needs in order to respect human dignity.

I found the exaggerated part successful in illustrating how excessively much value is placed on money. Money comes and goes. I am not among the high earners in this society. And I absolutely do not aspire to be. I find it important to sacrifice a healthy amount of my time for the job. Because my personal priority is the family. As long as I can provide for them, everything is fine for me.

I still have no problem with loans. I financed our wedding. Why not? I just pay it off and that's it... It costs more than paying cash. But if the money isn't there at the moment, then that's just how it is.

Everyone has their own perspective. And labeling other opinions as simply wrong, reprehensible, or off is shaped by the greatest intolerance.

I found the exaggeration successful in illustrating how excessively much value is placed on money.

This is told by people who, with few exceptions, can largely live their life plans. Whether you need a lot, little, or no money for that plays no role. People have different needs that can be more or less expensive.

I focused on the manner in which money is spent to satisfy these needs. Whether you save up for a life goal (even if it’s a small one like your first own kitchen) er saved, or save up a Konsum credit taken out for it.

The latter, and this should actually be indisputable here (?), carries a risk – even more so for people in jobs with high turnover, students, etc. I argued that one should forgo some comfort to avoid this risk. Because it strengthens financial independence and thus creates freedom.
The counterargument was the big blunt instrument: human dignity and what one should feel “worthy” of. As if the freedom gain I aimed for should not necessarily be part of dignity. It annoys me immensely when the security I put forward as an argument is declared “undeservedly earned,” although the freedom that comes with it should be a solid part of a dignified life.

Therefore, with all due respect, it is not merely “exaggerated.” It’s simply nonsense.

Money comes and goes.

Which one can live very well with if one already owns and has paid off the tangible assets that stabilize one’s life. But how exactly does one get there?

I still have no problem with loans. I financed our wedding. Why not?

Because a stroke of fate like job loss without timely follow-up, inability to work and insurance (initially) does not pay, expensive dental damage, mental setback due to a death in the close private circle, etc., etc., are more likely to additionally harm you financially (up to personal bankruptcy) if you then have consumer credit lines running. Your securities to prevent this are zero. They are consumer debts whose value has been consumed.

Everyone has their own view on things. And to generally call other opinions wrong, reprehensible, or inappropriate is shaped by utmost intolerance.

The mixing of saving for life goals with a lack of dignity (what are you worth to yourself?) ist wrong and inappropriate. That I detect behind this an image of humanity that I personally consider reprehensible is my private opinion. May be wrong. But here is an example:

You yourself described how the state has to secure basic needs in order to uphold human dignity.

What I described is mere subsistence within an unfree state. Should anyone try to tell me that this is dignified in our modern society? And then with the argument that money isn’t really that important once food, lodging, and a pair of shoes are provided? Remember, everything beyond that which people strive for is lightly dismissed as “undignified” capital accumulation in the so-called “exaggeration.” By people who can afford to say such things.

It is not about accumulating numbers on an account as an end in itself. It is about preserving values to later exchange them for tangible capital. Everyone who builds equity does this.

And please let everyone be aware that consumer debts can work – in the absence of bad luck. Lucky is who is granted this fortune. Still, I do not find it wise to rely on that or at least to count on it. And certainly not more dignified than the alternative.

What I described is pure life maintenance within an unfree state. Does anyone want to tell me that that is dignified in our modern society?

As far as people define their humanity by belonging to the majority/mass, apparently yes. In a consumer society, social participation takes place at the sangria bucket. Those who cannot relate to this are already considered intellectual today