Personal Finance Stupidity

There are only two overarching categories of factors that can impact someone's personal finance: external factors and internal factors.  The former includes employers too stubborn or materialistic to provide raises, while the latter is entirely within a person's own ability to directly manage.  On one hand, undercompensation and all sorts of workplace exploitation truly can devastate the lives and futures of workers, and some people refuse to acknowledge this.  On the other hand, stupidity can stop someone from accumulating wealth or utilizing their current possessions, such as if someone purchases a new vehicle every year merely so he or she can experience some emotionalistic thrill—or partly purchases it and then pays high monthly amounts for a prolonged period of time, all for no legitimate reason at all.

The asinine spending habits of certain individuals could in no way exempt employers from any obligations they might have towards their employees, since it could not nullify any legitimate human rights of workers.  Employers still have a moral obligation to not oppress their workers on a moralistic worldview like that of the Bible, such as by paying unlivable wages or even by paying out wages after the sunset following the end of a day's labor.  Yes, that is singled out as a grave sin in the Bible (Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:14-15).  Certainly, though, no amount of income or rapid payment would prevent stupid people lacking devotion to anything but immediate emotional excitement from squandering what they make so that they are always in gratuitous debt (aka, non-medical, for instance) or at least without any savings.

People can change their own personal finance behaviors despite having no control over how their employers act, and many appear to refuse this or persistently commit to bettering their position.  Maybe they assume that they "deserve" a vacation on an emotionalistic basis despite having no way to embark on this trip other than debt although they are doing nothing to seriously prevent or escape owing money.  In such a scenario, the problem is not strictly that the consumer is being undercompensated as a professional worker, which is unfortunately probable; maybe they truly are somehow rather fortunately not being exploited in this manner at all.  They are either way responsible for how they misuse the resources they do have.

It is true that no employee would be forced into poverty or financial desperation by societal factors if they found a sufficient amount of work that is livably compensated, but at the same time, even in poverty, a fool could absolutely harm their own financial standing by spending blindly on unnecessary things (especially if they will not use them!), making purchases based on sheer emotion rather than in accordance with rationalistic truths, and spending more than they make.  Spending money just to impress other people or chase a moment of materialistic happiness is philosophically asinine no matter someone's financial status, and yet there would seem to be no shortage of people who do such things.

Other than something like salary/wage negotiation, leaving for a new job, or remaining at a company long enough to get an automatic raise, there is nothing one can really do to obtain higher compensation for oneself.  With whatever money does come inside your sphere of control, it is no longer an idiotic or greedy employer's fault if you overspend with asinine motivations or without regard for your own psychological and economic stability.  It is also true that people with little to no self-control in this arena are very likely to lack it in more crucial ones.  A rationalist is unlikely to ever be in ongoing consumer debt, but if someone is emotionalistic with their purchasing habits, then they are already in the clutches of the great error of emotionalism, and this almost inevitably stems from neglect or misunderstanding of the abstract logical necessities that govern all things.