You have unemployment and more than enough time to find a new job. And let's say you don't find one, the state will still give you enough money for you to survive. Maybe you will have to reduce your lifestyle and be unhappy for some time but there is no need to seek to be rich just to prevent an unlikely future.
> You have unemployment and more than enough time to find a new job. And let's say you don't find one, the state will still give you enough money for you to survive.
Quite a few commenters on this forum live in parts of the world where that is not the case. It's certainly not the case for the majority of the world's population.
I sense an optimism of someone who yet not lived through a major recession. When the economy takes a nosedive, even janitor jobs can be hard to come by.
And welfare, even where it is available, is usually severely capped both in amount and duration. You may not die of hunger but losing your place to live is entirely realistic.
It's true, I haven't experienced a recession. I rather take the risk of having a hard time during a recession than having a hard time my whole life though.
This suggests that the cost of living adjusted salaries of today is half of what they were in 1960s if two people need to work now versus when only one needed to.
Also immigrating to a country with good social benefits does not solve the need to take care of elders and relatives , which would not benefit from the social system of the country to which you would immigrate
> This suggests that the cost of living adjusted salaries of today is half of what they were in 1960s if two people need to work now versus when only one needed to.
It's that, or people's "needs" (wants really) just got inflated over time.