Wait...don't everyone's eyes blink at the same time?
I mean, I've closed individual eyes a separate amount of times, but blinked? They've always blinked at the same time every time.

what people picture and what the PHRASE means are two different things. You are creating a strawman argument for zero purpose other than to dig your heels in and be right.
We are not debating what people THINK. We are debating what the phrase MEANS.

Since you are intent on arguing a non-point to no clear end, I refuse to keep entertaining your obtuse interpretation of something that you've already conceded. Good day.

Okay, then you tell me what it means.
I see nothing extreme about what I said at all, and since there's only two sides to the concept, I don't see how it could be taken any other way.
You either have less expenses than you have income, or you have more expenses than you have income.
The phrase speaks absolutely nothing about how far beneath or how far beyond your means you are living. You are simply injecting additional meaning where there is none from my point of view.
I genuinely do not see any other way to interpret the phrase.

But that's all the phrase means. To live with expenses that amount to less than your income. How FAR beneath your means you decide to live simply equates to how much you're able to save.

What do you think that phrase means then?