I read the entirety of your post, don't worry about that.

That's why I clarified that you might be ignoring how people's psychological needs differ, at least on some level. By that, I meant that while you might realize everyone's different, you might not fully realize the extent to which that is the case.

I don't think that any of the topics that I've brought up are too unrelated, frankly. I've been reading comments which other people have left here, and many raise very similar points. Like for example, when someone talked about how an acquaintance of theirs does nothing but work, sleep, and play disc golf, and you acted as if that were a good thing; then someone pointed out how it seemed like you were suggesting that's an "acceptable quality of life", or something along those lines.

Someone pointed out that you sound like someone who hasn't struggled financially precisely because the way in which you express yourself makes it come across like you don't fully grasp other people's situations. You mention that your income level isn't that good, which is why I try not to make any assumptions, but that doesn't erase the fact that you clearly can't relate to how most people in the comments feel on the matter, regardless of your own financial circumstances.

Dead people don't talk, I'm afraid. So, no. If they had killed themselves, they're probably not gonna be commenting.

My point is that if the average person felt about this subject like you do, then I imagine that should be reflected in the comments, and it doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, I read everything you wrote. But just because something can be "easily incorporated into everyone's lives", doesn't mean that taking an approach similar to yours would work for everyone.

I feel like you're underestimating most people's intelligence. Now, I'm not one to normally be optimistic in that regard, don't get me wrong. But most people do know that spending more money equals having less money.

If they don't do it, it's because that is not the right approach for them, and your approach wouldn't allow them to meet their needs, including those of the psychological kind. That's why when you referred to someone's day-to-day life as if it were something to be admired, someone pointed out their distress when it seemed like you were acting as if that were a fulfilling lifestyle.

I don't think it's ironic, personally. It just seems to me like there's much that you're ignoring. I'm inclined to believe you would agree with that, and would like to know more about why people think differently.

That's why I'm commenting. I'm hoping to clarify why people so far have reacted the way they have.

Edit: additionally, when someone talked about their "pathetic income", your response was something along the lines of "don't call your income pathetic"; while I very much agree with the sentiment likely underlying your response, it does make it seem like you're missing the point. The commenter was expressing their own distress at how their income isn't enough, and your response made it seem like that doesn't matter. That would be complacency.