How long can you continue to spend more each month than you make?
I don't fully trust that story. Maybe many of the people who have "no savings" have a mortgage to pay off? Technically they have a debt and all spare money goes to the bank, but really they own a house that is worth more than the debt?
In such cases I'd say it is more of a mindset issue.
You should do something about your financial situation if that seems like a lot of money to you.
Edit: how is it controversial that if you are poor, you should try to do something about it? To claim it is impossible to escape poverty is madness (unless you are sick or handicapped). Obviously the only way to escape is if you do something about it.
Even if you just earn 5$ per hour, you can try to save something. 1000$ would be 200 hours, not impossible. A better strategy would be to try to find a job that pays better, though.
You know, if you could come up with a better way to implement it, you could become a billionaire. But maybe you already are, everything is possible on HN.
My other reply was flagged (no criticism of socialism on HN, oh no).
I wanted to add:
As Wikipedia says, Socialism wants "social ownership", they want to do away with private property. That was the origin of the discussion. Since socialists want to confiscate wealth, people flee into crypto currencies, among other things.
"living paycheck to paycheck, with no financial mobility or leverage, are surely not seeing freedom in the system or even a path to get there."
So they want to instate Socialism to ensure that NOBODY has a path to freedom anymore. That is envy yet again.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, try to change your life. Under capitalism you are free to try other ways of living. Under socialism, living paycheck to paycheck, or rather food stamp to food stamp, is the only allowed way of existence.
Because people want to live in the city. I bet you can find really cheap houses in the countryside.
Iirc A couple of days ago there was even a post up on HN that listed places where the government would give you land for free, and I think also some starting capital.
He really did write "The answer is nobody knows"? Blockchains are not that hard to understand. So he plainly admits he doesn't know what he is talking about?
The greatest irony here is that protection against socialist ideologues like the author of this article is one of the main motivations for using cryptocurrencies.
Maybe if they would fix their ideology, people wouldn't have to resort to decentralized solutions.
As for the actual content, I plainly don't trust the calculations of the anti-crypto crowd.
And while I also had lost faith in Proof of Stakes ever making it into Ethereum (unfortunately also selling all my Ethereum when I gave up on them), they have now activated the PoS chain and run it in parallel to PoW, with the goal to switch completely.
The stuff about "social justice" is also nonsense, at least with respect to mining in PoS: it is not that much Eth you need to participate, and if you don't want to invest as much, you can join a mining pool. Everybody can participate, if they want to. It is also not "unjust" if people who invest (or stake) more receive higher rewards. The opposite would be unjust.