Conquer Club

76% of Americans apparently are living paycheck to paycheck.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emer ... index.html

That's amazing to me.

wallstreet flourishes and mainstreet exacerbates,
common practice for politicians and bankers

I don't believe that. Lamborghini claims they are selling more cars than ever before.

The American people are very rich.

The Bankrate survey says "paycheck to paycheck" would include someone who had 5.5 months of cash on hand.

In other words, as I understand it - and I could be wrong - a person making the median income of $52,000 would be considered living paycheck to paycheck if they had $24,000 in their checking account and $240,000 in non-liquid assets like securities in an IRA and home equity. IIRC, Dave Ramsey recommends 4 months + $1K of emergency money but anything beyond that should be invested and not held in cash. So a person following Ramsey's advice would fall in Bankrate's definition of paycheck-to-paycheck.

Where is BBS/Fruitcake? Does anyone remember the phrase we're supposed to use to summon BBS into a thread? It's like "Zawo Zawo BBS, Appear Now!" or something like that, I think.

saxitoxin wrote:Where is BBS/Fruitcake? Does anyone remember the phrase we're supposed to use to summon BBS into a thread? It's like "Zawo Zawo BBS, Appear Now!" or something like that, I think.

I thought it was something about penises or the like...

many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice. I know more then a few people who can't hold onto a dollar if their life depended on it, it actually does burn holes in their pockets, and many people are too lazy to stretch their dollars out or look for deals or negotiate rents and bills and services or simply refuse to go without HBO-Showtime package and the HD upgrade.

Every time most of us get an opportunity to get ahead, we instead up our services/consumption. It also makes sense in an economic environment where the savings rate cannot even outperform inflation, so who wants to hold onto money anyways right?

I live paycheck to paycheck but my paycheck is 0 dollars

Army of GOD wrote:I live paycheck to paycheck but my paycheck is 0 dollars

At least they pay you what you're worth.

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice. I know more then a few people who can't hold onto a dollar if their life depended on it, it actually does burn holes in their pockets, and many people are too lazy to stretch their dollars out or look for deals or negotiate rents and bills and services or simply refuse to go without HBO-Showtime package and the HD upgrade.

Every time most of us get an opportunity to get ahead, we instead up our services/consumption. It also makes sense in an economic environment where the savings rate cannot even outperform inflation, so who wants to hold onto money anyways right?

inb4 player

saxitoxin wrote:The Bankrate survey says "paycheck to paycheck" would include someone who had 5.5 months of cash on hand.

In other words, as I understand it - and I could be wrong - a person making the median income of $52,000 would be considered living paycheck to paycheck if they had $24,000 in their checking account and $240,000 in non-liquid assets like securities in an IRA and home equity. IIRC, Dave Ramsey recommends 4 months + $1K of emergency money but anything beyond that should be invested and not held in cash. So a person following Ramsey's advice would fall in Bankrate's definition of paycheck-to-paycheck.

Where is BBS/Fruitcake? Does anyone remember the phrase we're supposed to use to summon BBS into a thread? It's like "Zawo Zawo BBS, Appear Now!" or something like that, I think.

Let's see here...

Hm-hmm.

M-hmm.

Mhm-hmm.

Yeah, you covered it. Let's all pack our stuff and gtfo this thread.

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice. I know more then a few people who can't hold onto a dollar if their life depended on it, it actually does burn holes in their pockets, and many people are too lazy to stretch their dollars out or look for deals or negotiate rents and bills and services or simply refuse to go without HBO-Showtime package and the HD upgrade.

Every time most of us get an opportunity to get ahead, we instead up our services/consumption. It also makes sense in an economic environment where the savings rate cannot even outperform inflation, so who wants to hold onto money anyways right?

Sure, all of that is true, in my opinion, as well. The difference is that I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing for those who choose to live that way, as long as they're not putting themselves into debt doing it (which is a very different matter). Is it a risky proposition? Absolutely. But if they're in a career where it doesn't matter because either there are massive numbers of similar jobs available (fast food, etc) or their job is highly specialized and not overflowing with workers, then it's not even so risky really.

Nobunaga wrote:76% of Americans apparently are living paycheck to paycheck.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emer ... index.html

That's amazing to me.

I was paycheck-to-paycheck for most of my military career...unavoidable, really, until I reached about E-6. So if you consider how many lower-enlisted military there are, that's at least a noticeable portion of that 75% of Americans.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice. I know more then a few people who can't hold onto a dollar if their life depended on it, it actually does burn holes in their pockets, and many people are too lazy to stretch their dollars out or look for deals or negotiate rents and bills and services or simply refuse to go without HBO-Showtime package and the HD upgrade.

Every time most of us get an opportunity to get ahead, we instead up our services/consumption. It also makes sense in an economic environment where the savings rate cannot even outperform inflation, so who wants to hold onto money anyways right?

Sure, all of that is true, in my opinion, as well. The difference is that I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing for those who choose to live that way, as long as they're not putting themselves into debt doing it (which is a very different matter). Is it a risky proposition? Absolutely. But if they're in a career where it doesn't matter because either there are massive numbers of similar jobs available (fast food, etc) or their job is highly specialized and not overflowing with workers, then it's not even so risky really.

Precisely! I can give two examples.

EXAMPLE ONE: I would say that my wife and I are currently living paycheck-to-paycheck. I only own 25% of my home and about 70% of my wife's car, but neither of us have any other loans or debt. We have one credit card with a $500 spending limit.

Living this way has taught me how to balance a budget, which is something that I would've never learned otherwise. Refusing to go without HBO-Showtime? Hell, we don't even have basic cable...or even a Netflix subscription. That's just one example (of many) of how we save money. I would consider my job pretty safe (small business in IT, owner likes me, etc.). Also, both my wife's dad and my parents would be in a position to be our safety nets should the worst happen.

EXAMPLE TWO: A close family friend died recently leaving his wife with $30,000 in credit card debt. They have quite a few assets, but own next to nothing on their home, so probably not enough to repay everything (and certainly not enough to continue living without some type of assistance). This couple was not living paycheck-to-paycheck (they're both retired). And the last year, they had spent $100,000 renovating their kitchen. Now I ask, are my wife and I in the better position or is my friend?

TL;DR: Living paycheck-to-paycheck could be much better than the alternative.

The Voice wrote:Living this way has taught me how to balance a budget, which is something that I would've never learned otherwise. Refusing to go without HBO-Showtime? Hell, we don't even have basic cable...or even a Netflix subscription. That's just one example (of many) of how we save money. I would consider my job pretty safe (small business in IT, owner likes me, etc.). Also, both my wife's dad and my parents would be in a position to be our safety nets should the worst happen.

The 50s called, they wanted their lifestyle back.

saxitoxin wrote: ... the median income of $52,000 would be considered ...

...a rich man almost anywhere else in the world.

So, please, all emigrate, ...

... then your economic control rip-off con merchant trick empire dies ...

... and the whole world is better off

Does the definition change for college students? I know that when I work in the summer, I earn enough that I could survive. i.e. rent, car insurance, food for more than 6 months after I've worked for duration of the summer. But then, I pay tuition.... and bam! I'm poor again. Is that paycheck to paycheck?

wow only 76%!

at least some countries are doing great

nietzsche wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

that's waste if you ask me. That fly-by-night attitude can only be enjoyed at the expense of the future. when all of a sudden you get a flat tire or miss a day of work on your check, if you have a rich mommy and daddy to give you/borrow you money, then I can understand all that. Many do not have that option though, and they are either forced to learn the value of money and how to manage it as best they can, or they give up and prescribe themselves a victim, and that can justify a lot more bad decision making other than "living in the moment"/surrendering to every impulse.

Phatscotty wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

that's waste if you ask me. That fly-by-night attitude can only be enjoyed at the expense of the future. when all of a sudden you get a flat tire or miss a day of work on your check, if you have a rich mommy and daddy to give you/borrow you money, then I can understand all that. Many do not have that option though, and they are either forced to learn the value of money and how to manage it as best they can, or they give up and prescribe themselves a victim, and that can justify a lot more bad decision making other than "living in the moment"/surrendering to every impulse.

I'd say your hate towards those with that attitude comes from a fear of being in that position. If it was a healthy drive towards saving for a rainy day, you wouldn't need to be talking about them, you'd just go about your day happily knowing that you are doing what you want.

And I say that because I'm of a similar disposition, well, my whole family is, and I was raised that way, but then something happens, and you realize it's not worth it to be saving all that money cause you'll die anyway. What it's more important that saving is investing in yourself so that you can have a big enough income that even though rainy day comes, you can recover.

Hate is always a front for fear.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice. I know more then a few people who can't hold onto a dollar if their life depended on it, it actually does burn holes in their pockets, and many people are too lazy to stretch their dollars out or look for deals or negotiate rents and bills and services or simply refuse to go without HBO-Showtime package and the HD upgrade.

Every time most of us get an opportunity to get ahead, we instead up our services/consumption. It also makes sense in an economic environment where the savings rate cannot even outperform inflation, so who wants to hold onto money anyways right?

Sure, all of that is true, in my opinion, as well. The difference is that I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing for those who choose to live that way, as long as they're not putting themselves into debt doing it (which is a very different matter). Is it a risky proposition? Absolutely. But if they're in a career where it doesn't matter because either there are massive numbers of similar jobs available (fast food, etc) or their job is highly specialized and not overflowing with workers, then it's not even so risky really.

For more people there just IS no choice. The few dollars that could be saved (I mean many of my current and former coworkers who have less than $100 a month for anything other then basic necessities) are not enough to matter. When saving even that much means cutting every last dollar from your food budget, doing without TV, music, internet (except what you can get for free from your local library -- and that only if you can walk or drive on the way to a necessary location), the cost is very high. In today's society, no money means little contact with other people. Unless you live in a larger city, it means not doing much of anything-- -EVER. (no museums, no zoos, no parks, rarely seeing people outside of work.. etc.). Its a recipe for depression.

When you know that you can go through all that and have it all wiped out because of one moderate illness or injury or one unexpected major repair, then the incentive to save shrinks.

(and no, I am not talking about my self, I AM talking about co-workers, some of whom I am attempting to help make better financial choices in small ways).

Phatscotty wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

that's waste if you ask me. That fly-by-night attitude can only be enjoyed at the expense of the future. when all of a sudden you get a flat tire or miss a day of work on your check, if you have a rich mommy and daddy to give you/borrow you money, then I can understand all that. Many do not have that option though, and they are either forced to learn the value of money and how to manage it as best they can, or they give up and prescribe themselves a victim, and that can justify a lot more bad decision making other than "living in the moment"/surrendering to every impulse.

I see, and if working and saving mean you STILL don't have the money for that major repair or illness, then what?

At some point, people just need to make more. That "point" is now. Expecting people to survive on $7.35 an hour is not a joke, its a tragedy.

I was for many years, then I wasn't for a while, now I would be if I had a paycheck, then I will be again, and then I won't FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE DAGNABIT!

ps. I'm using the real meaning of paycheck to paycheck. Meaning, using up all (or almost all) of a paycheck before the next one arrives.

I have to pimp out my dog to survive.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:many people who live paycheck to paycheck waste most of their money.

For many I think it's a life choice.

Up to that point it was accurate, except they don't waste it, jut decide to spend it in whatever they like in the moment.

that's waste if you ask me. That fly-by-night attitude can only be enjoyed at the expense of the future. when all of a sudden you get a flat tire or miss a day of work on your check, if you have a rich mommy and daddy to give you/borrow you money, then I can understand all that. Many do not have that option though, and they are either forced to learn the value of money and how to manage it as best they can, or they give up and prescribe themselves a victim, and that can justify a lot more bad decision making other than "living in the moment"/surrendering to every impulse.

I see, and if working and saving mean you STILL don't have the money for that major repair or illness, then what?

At some point, people just need to make more. That "point" is now. Expecting people to survive on $7.35 an hour is not a joke, its a tragedy.

I don't think it's as simple as that. As soon as wages go up, so do prices....That is just playing into the inflation game, where the poor are always the biggest losers. Don't get me wrong I completely understand what you mean, but, are there any other options? Like, maybe we could make the same amount, but our dollar would be stronger and could go further? Look at how it was in the 70's and 80's. College students could work during the summer and make enough to pay for their own tuition and room and board and graduate with little to no student debt.

and 7.35 is an entry level position, and is a wage that requires little to no skill at all. 90% of people who start there move up to 8$ within the first 6-12 months, if not the first 60 days.