There are two issues: Are you saving a sensible amount, will that amount ever amount to the ability to purchase a house. They're related, but they're not the same: there are lots of reasons to have a good safety net other than saving for a house. I'd be very nervous if I only had $1,000 in liquid assets.
I did the calculations a few months ago for a postdoc trying to buy a house here in Cambridge. Assuming that property prices and salaries keep increasing at the rates that they have been for the last few years (not necessarily a given - I actually picked a slightly lower number for house price growth given Brexit) and assuming that you need a 20% deposit for a house, the amount of the deposit will go up by 10-25% (over 10 years) of the gross (pre-tax) salary of a postdoc per year. Even if you save 10% of your gross income (basically impossible with rental prices here) now, you're not actually getting any closer to a house deposit, and next year that 10% will be higher. That's basically unsustainable, but if you don't have savings then you won't be able to buy when the bubble bursts.
easing an expensive car you can show off instead of buying one more practical
buying a new car instead of a used car
replacing a car after using it just 3 years
Or, in many cases, buying a car at all. Before I bought my first house, I looked at the difference in price for somewhere cheaper a bit out of town and then added in the running costs of a car (which I didn't need living in the city) and, counting appreciation and depreciation, came to the conclusion that not buying a car was a better financial bet. I'd done something similar earlier when I was renting: the monthly operating costs of a car were more than the difference in rent between somewhere near the middle of town and somewhere far enough out that I'd need to drive. The last time this came up, someone posted a detailed analysis that someone had done for the US.
Cars cost a lot to maintain, insure, and fuel, and depreciate over their lifetime. The benefits only outweigh the costs if you have a well-paid job out in the countryside.
A smartphone is now pretty close to being essential. An expensive one is not. My phone is now over 3 years old (and cost about £100 then) and still does everything I need it to. I'm on a pre-pay contract and typically spend about £1/month on it. I'll probably replace it soon, because it hasn't had security updates for a little while (I don't trust it with any important data, passwords, and so on, but people are increasingly using SMS for two-factor auth so that's starting to be an issue).
I quite often see students with far less disposable income than me spending £600 on a brand-new iPhone and then £10-20/month on a contract for it. This isn't a new phenomenon by any means, but a lot of people seem really bad at doing cost-benefit analyses.
This is how people you fight poverty. Maintain the family unit, help your children to become more successful than yourself.
I'd argue exactly the opposite. Parents are now one of the biggest mortgage lenders in the UK and this has increased wealth inequality: your parents' wealth is now a bigger indicator of whether you'll be able to afford a house than your personal income. If this continues, you'll see a greater divide between those born to well-off parents and those who weren't.
Want to keep Firefox competitive, allow XUL extensions
Compartmentalised rendering or XUL, pick one. If you pick compartmentalisation, people complain that you've broken their plugins. If you pick XUL, people complain that a bug exploited in a one tab allowed an attacker to compromise your entire browser and get at all of the credentials that the browser can access.
and Windows XP,
So, you want an insecure browser running on an insecure (i.e. known vulnerabilities, being exploited in the wild, no patches available) OS?
There already IS benefits
If you're willing to go to the effort of making your typos bold, perhaps you could just fix them instead.
Unix is a Registered Bell of AT&T Trademark Laboratories. -- Donn Seeley