Declined invitations go over more graciously when lack of money is cited | Hacker News Reader

Declined invitations go over more graciously when lack of money is cited

theconversation.com

43 pointsnewonebig12342 comments

Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rather do something else". Whereas financials can very drastically, so it's much more believable that you are in rough patch and simply can't afford it for objective as opposed to subjective reasons.

You are right that this is ultimately about choosing priorities and sticking to that choice.

> "I don't have the time"

Can also mean "I have enough chaos in my life right now that I cannot determine my priorities well enough to say yes and keep that commitment."

> so it's much more believable

This chaos can come from failing to say no to commitments for fear that the people in your life will not believe you about your own time-management situation.

Sadly, people don't respect time. Look at how people have destination weddings and expect people to travel and pay for accommodation. More recently I've simply started politely declining invitations without providing reasons.

How is somebody planning their wedding based on their interests a lack of respect? The wedding isn't about the guests

If invites are sent, then it’s at least a little bit about the guests. If people would be happy to get married at any place at any time, and don’t care in the slightest whether any other people show up, then you could say that it’s not about the guests. But you can’t.

I can, and I do. Weddings are about the people getting married, unless for some reason you think people get married for your sake or for their friends' sakes. If somebody has a problem, there's no law or hit squad sent out to compel them. It's unreasonable to have this attitude that people should limit their weddings just to "respect your time"

Public weddings are also about the guests. The guests serve a function: they witness the promises, and tacitly agree to help support them in fulfilling it. (I've even been to ceremonies that make that explicit: the guests are asked to reply to a vow with "We do".)

Not every couple wants that. Some elope, and others hold ceremonies only because they think relatives and friends demand it of them. The latter is unfortunate, because it imposes a burden on the new couple that they shouldn't have to shoulder.

But the couple should consider that community can be a crucial part of the success of their marriage, in ways that they may not recognize (especially if they're young). It can benefit them to have the community at the ceremony and feel invested in the marriage (for however they define "community").

Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.

> Having taken that into account, they should by all means do whatever the hell they want, since it's their damn wedding. But if they do want that kind of witness and tacit promise of support, they do need to make compromises with everybody involved.

I think we have some overlap, I just lean more towards disregarding guests. For me it's strictly a matter of whether people come or not. If they want witness or someone to come, then yes the couple needs to be practical and consider compromise. But if they want support, then no, I don't think it's necessary to compromise. Someone's support of a couple shouldn't be based on how convenient and fun the couple's wedding was.

You're implying that you somehow are entitled to having the weddings you want to attend be near your place of residence. Why would the people getting married prioritize your entitlement over them having the party where they'd enjoy having it?

It's their party, your being invited at all is already a courtesy being extended to you.

My thought process is optimization for all the guests. Doing some simple math: Cost of holding wedding at location X + cost of wedding attendents travel + cost of lodging at location X vs the same costs at location Y.

Not surprising, the location where the majority of the attendents reside is usually the most economical for the total cost the wedding for all involved. I do understand that it is the couples wedding and they can choose where they want to hold it. I am surprised that more couples (in my limited experience) do not consider their guests expenses more.

You are assuming they want all of the guests to attend. Plenty of family and friend obligations that become socially awkward to snub.

Destination wedding will eliminate some percentage of guests who "do not matter", which has the side benefit of reducing the venue expense.

Interesting how different perspectives are on such topics.

When we got married, our goal was to have a great party for everyone we invited.

Which included thinking about were our wedding is, making sure our Guests have a great time and that the photographer would make sure to also take pictures of and for them as you normally dress for the event.

I would personally not care about a wedding without guests and i wouldn't care about random guests. Therefore my mental conclusion is, that its the guests who are a critical part of our wedding and therefore they do serve being accounted for.

Of course if i would marry somewhere totally different, i would make it much smaller to put less pressure on my guests but i was really happy to have nearly my whole family taking part in our wedding.

But it probably depends on your expectation. If you don't mind your guests not coming due to costs and effort, its probably valid as well.

> Time is inherently equalitarian, everybody gets the same amount so "I don't have the time" is a way to say "I don't think it's a priority for me and I would rather do something else".

The scientific concept of time is. The social concept of time / free time definitely is not.

The amount of free time you have as a 14 year old kid, is very different from the amount of time you have being single in your mid 20s, which is very different from the amount of time you have being a parent with 3 kids.

Saying everyone has the same amount of time is wrong.

They do have the same amount of time. They spend it differently. That reflects their values. What you described was not different amounts of time but different values and priorities.

They don't have the same amount of "their own" or "unobligated" time

Depends of the country.

Could mean you don't want to spend the money for me.

It is true that everyone gets the same 24 hours each day.

It is not true that the ability to allocate that time is egalitarian.

It is much, much more likely that people with less money will have to spend more of their time working, taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, commuting on public transport, and 1001 other things that pick away at their time, but would be easily resolvable if they just had wads of disposable cash to throw at them instead.

It turns out all problems are money problems.

Big confounding variable: talking about money is taboo, so if you’re willing to discuss it you’re probably have an already close relationship with the person whose invitation you’re declining.

or if you don't have a close relationship, then you leave the impression you must be coming from a hard place!

Other big confounding variable: the "experiment" consists mainly of asking people to recall or imagine a times when someone declines to attend something due to lack of time. Most people's life experience is going to include a vast number of invitations declined by a vast number of friends who were doing something else at the time. The experience that springs to mind first is probably an unusually disappointing one. (cf invitations declined due to cost, which is somewhat rarer. First example that springs to mind is probably something that's very expensive, or someone that is particularly poor or would have a particularly expensive trip to meet up)

I don't think that translates to real world acceptance of financial excuses generally being higher, especially not if you're on a software developer's salary and the invitation is for coffee...

I grew up in a family where “we can’t afford it” was a mantra. So when I hear that one I wish people could make up a more creative excuse.

But my friends roughly know my living standard... so coming up with an excuse that is most probably a lie will not be met more favorably I would assume.

I had the same thought. My friends and family are all mostly in the same income bracket, and "don't have the money" would be an obvious lie for all but the most expensive event (recent example was a luxury safari in Africa at >$10k/head).

I use the 'dont have the money' excuse all the time for some people. As the other side seems to be a consistent lack of respect for my time, for some people. 'what why? you are not doing anything anyway'. Basically they have decided whatever I was going to use that time for is better spent with whatever activity they cooked up. Sometimes that is true. But the money thing seems to get them to think it through. The impulsive people seem to get it more, as they are usually short no mater how much cash they make. They seem to find a way to burn through it. The more thoughtful people approach it with a respect of my time and I can discuss it rationally with them.

I wonder if there's an age component. I'm mid-40s. There's zero expectation that people make late-breaking plans to go party downtown (as would have been the case in my 20s). And some friends have kids, which just complicates things more. At the end of the day "nah, I have [life] going on" is a completely normal response.

I think there is some of that. But some of the people I use this on are well past 40. But my theory is some people never 'grow up'.

Can't you still cite finances as a reason for not going? As in, "sorry I don't want to spend that much on this experience"

You could, but that really isn't any different than "I don't want to come (for some other reason)."

There's a difference between "don't want to" and "can't do".

But, we have a pretty tight-knit group of friends, most of whom live within walking distance, and due to kids, we usually just have dinner at somebody's house. We're boring white collar suburbanites, I guess.

> people taking part in this study felt less close and trusting of those who used a lack of time as their excuse

I'm not too convinced they've got the cause and effect the right way around. It's not implausible that people don't cite money issues as a reason to people they're not close with.

Or that the people who cite money issues are the people that really obviously weren't likely to come anyway, like the people that would need to fly over from a different continent...

I don't see why people care so much. If someone doesn't come to an event of mine, that's fine. They can even give reasons like they weren't interested, it wasn't their thing, etc. That's fine with me.

It doesn't seem like a bad thing that they do care. The end result in the study was that people trusted the person who doesn't make time for them less. But that's exactly the right result. You should be less close and show less trust toward someone who won't make time for you, since they are, by definition, not going to be there for you as often when you need it. It seems quite natural to move trust and closeness to a party that, for whatever reason, isn't going to decline invitations to engage. Nothing wrong with the other party if they have other priorities, but it does mean they aren't a good person for the inviter to depend on. Sort of avoiding codependency.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. If you've ever seen That 70s Show where Kitty asks Red to name his friends and he names someone he hasn't seen in years. This sort of thing can happen in real life. Some people have friendships that last even without constant contact. I have a few of these.

I don't think that's entirely fair. I have a limited amount of energy to spend on social activities in a week. just because I decline many of your invitations to hang out doesn't mean I won't clear my schedule to help you move, drive you to the hospital, or even help you make rent every once in a while. unless there's some additional context (eg, "I have something important to discuss", "I want you to meet {important person to me}"), I tend to consider social invitations as low priority requests.

To be honest, I just need to know if you’re coming so I can plan the right size table, transport, food, whatever.

If you’re not coming, I’m largely indifferent as to why and certainly won’t investigate to see if you’re telling the truth on the reason.

There was a period in my life where other peoples' weddings basically dictated my vacation planning. I was extremely happy to go to as many weddings as I could! I was single and most of the weddings were where I was going to fly anyway.

On the same token, when I got married the vast majority of my guests traveled by plane. One of my aunts had a lot going on in her life and didn't want to fly out for a few days. I totally understood and respect her priorities. It was a lot to ask of her to fly out. (Most of my extended family welcomed the excuse to take a large extended family trip together.) Another friend declined. He certainly "could afford it," but I didn't feel like there was any obligation on his part to put the time and money into travel.

I had so many "mandatory" group activities growing up that I just accept that people will say no to invites. We live in busy times, and I think the most well-adjusted people know how to keep control in their lives.

I try to avoid giving reasons when I decline an invitation. Just a simple, “thanks for the invitation, but I regretfully must decline”

As someone who never has money, I can confirm that people have low expectations of me. However, this is still tricky for me because even if I have like 20 bucks, my friends in developing nations still think I'm loaded.

Energy is the finite resource.

Then Time.

Then way down is money.

For most things people don’t have the energy to continue.

Articles like this, and advice columns in general, make me very happy for the very modest social life I allow to intrude in my domestic life.

Illness and death-related excuses work pretty well, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com