Explain how it is reductionist to say that when there’s over 50% of a whole nation that’s in financial woes?
If anything trying to blame the each individual’s actions is reductionist.
It paralyzes any political discussion in order to uphold an ever fragile status quo.
How many more people in your own country need to into debt before
you start calling it a systemic issue? 80%? 90%? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?

Whatever your solution is going to be, people’s incomes are going to go down,
as everything is being automated.
Grocery stores are being automated.
Fast food chains are being automated.
Any brick-and-mortar store is disappearing.
Artists are being replaced

Your personal anecdote is worthless.
I delivered magazines, newspapers and mowed lawns when I was a kid.
Good luck telling the Gen Z that!

And if you don’t understand why, I’ll try be as reductionist as possible
in how my (and your) personal anecdote doesn’t work anymore:

Internet, AI & robots has set up the us the bomb
All your income are belong to FAANG!!
You have no chance to survive make your time
Move Cap Install Com
For great justice!

The original post is that 50% of Americans consider themselves ‘broke’.
@sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works a solution that would be considerate if 0.1% of working class Americans considered themselves broke.
@iamdisillusioned@lemmy.world offers an analysis why a ‘pull yourself together’ solution doesn’t work when the issue starts hitting 50+% of a nation. That means there’s something systemically going wrong and any suggested ‘pull yourself by the bootstraps’ solution is going to be met with more and more anger from a larger and larger crowd.