Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 309 posts

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#11

Post by [deleted] »

cabaalis wrote: post #7
cryptoz wrote: post #3

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle clai…

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

[deleted]

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#12

Post by jschwartzi »

cabaalis wrote: post #7
cryptoz wrote: post #3

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle clai…

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

Every policy favors one group over another. The policy against murder favors non-murderers against murderers. The question shouldn't be about whether a policy favors someone but whether the policy helps someone live a better life.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#13

Post by StephenSmith »

There's a lot of negativity in this thread and the title is very sensational. The point that should be highlighted in the article - "The bright side? That's an improvement from half of adults being unable to cover such an expense in 2013. The number has been ticking down each year since."

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#14

Post by nathanaldensr »

georgrwasington wrote: post #8

America is over. The class divide has surpassed any reasonable threshold and in time it will only further crystalize. This country needs an Elon Musk to replace every part of the government, which is itself a jobs program at this point. We do not live in "America" anymore.

I was with you until your Musk comment. We don't need more centralization of power; instead, we need decentralization--more local sustainability in place of the just-in-time global economy we live in now.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#15

Post by wavefunction »

cabaalis wrote: post #7
cryptoz wrote: post #3

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle clai…

I am and know many conservatives. I don't see any "poor hate," though I don't argue it doesn't exist. Rather, it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field, i.e. creating policies that favor one group over another. Well-intentioned as any given policy may be, we are opposed to crafting government rules or benefits that apply to one set of people and not another.

>it seems conservatives get upset at the idea of an unlevel playing field

It seems to me that the conviction in which conservatives believe in this particular principal depends on what they'll get out of the situation.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#17

Post by dv_dt »

cryptoz wrote: post #3

This makes it clear why our current capitalism doesn't work. The ruling class / rich and wealth people and businesses could extract more wealth out of the middle and lower classes than they do now, if the lower classes were more stable and secure. In the US especially, but nearly everywhere, there are hoards of people trying to lower or eliminate social services, basic science research, etc, with the dog-whistle clai…

The Shock Doctrine [1] described that idea that the rich could undertake disasters of various types in order to push unpopular policy in their wake. I don't think it was ever updated to the 2008 recession, but the bailout of the banks via buying poorly performing securities via quantitative easing follows that though with the same effect. The fed bought risky bank mortgage securities, while still allowing mortgage loan servicing continue to collect on loans and real estate parcels (and equity value) of individuals who didn't get a bail out - and now whatever survived will be sold back to the banks.

Even if not intentional, it's a question of financial buffers. The extremely wealthy can weather recession and do even better by buying distressed assets from any who don't have the buffer which they hold. It's not the absolute numbers of the wealth, it's the amount of growth in control of assets that matter in this model. Without the right public policy, the wealthy win on the backs of the poor on the downswing and upswing of the broad economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

I wonder what happens when we swing into recession and there is nothing left to take.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#19

Post by sjg007 »

johnm1019 wrote: post #2

I think we as a nation should consider this an issue of national security. This type of financial instability in such a large percentage of the population could lead to making short-sighted or bad decisions in tough times, increased violence, increased rates of incarceration (both of those increasing the cost of government for all), among many other things. The reasons for it are multi-faceted I'm sure. I hope voters…

We should but you know personal responsibility and all that jazz. The wealthy only care when the pitchforks come out. The biggest achievement of the wealthy has been to convince the middle class to eat itself.

Re: 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense

#20

Post by ccajas »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #14
georgrwasington wrote: post #8

America is over. The class divide has surpassed any reasonable threshold and in time it will only further crystalize. This country needs an Elon Musk to replace every part of the government, which is itself a jobs program at this point. We do not live in "America" anymore.

I was with you until your Musk comment. We don't need more centralization of power; instead, we need de centralization--more local sustainability in place of the just-in-time global economy we live in now.

The other side of his comment about the class divide is kind of telling though. It implies that the middle class is the most unstable of the three major economic classes in the long run. And with the current system of constraints, contents only want to settle in the top or in the bottom.
Post reply on HN