The longer I observe people’s decisions around money, the more I see that income is only part of the story.
Stability is something entirely different.
You can earn a lot and still feel insecure. You can earn an average income and feel grounded. The difference rarely lies only in numbers, but more often in memory.
Financial instability leaves a long-lasting mark.
When money was scarce, it wasn’t abstract — it was rent, bills, food. It carried tension that lingered in the air. Every decision had weight, and the consequences were immediate.
In those conditions, money stops being a tool and you become alert.
You learn to anticipate loss.
You learn to calculate faster than others.
You learn that mistakes cost more than they should.
And that does not disappear when the situation improves.
For some, that mark turns into discipline. They build reserves early. They avoid unnecessary risk. Stability becomes the primary objective, not an addition.
For others, the same past creates the opposite reaction. When security was never guaranteed, risk stops being frightening. Urgency appears. Short-term wins feel more real than patient building, because the future was never promised.
The psychology of money rarely forms in moments of wealth. More often, it is born in moments of scarcity.
That is why two people with similar ability can make entirely different financial decisions. One instinctively protects capital. The other instinctively multiplies it, as if standing still were more dangerous than moving.
It is a question of the first experience of stability — or its absence.
Perhaps that is why we judge others’ choices so easily, without seeing the relationship with money that was formed much earlier.
Sometimes the most important work is not increasing income, but understanding whether we are still reacting to a shortage that no longer exists.
If you want, you can reply in one sentence:
are your financial decisions today shaped by your current situation, or by a past experience?
I read every reply.
— Michał
Refined Money