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

51–60 of 309 posts

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

#51

Post by MisterTea »

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.

> 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.

Conservatives talk about poor people as if it's a permanent attribute that can't be changed like "race". Poor is a tangible attribute. The programs which you fear so much are there to help people change that attribute.

But I get the feeling that many of the so-called conservatives use poor as a euphemism for undesirable people they don't want to see get ahead or mingle with. Why else would you refuse a helping hand to someone in need?

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

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

ralusek wrote: post #31
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

> I will say this again.

Repetition doesn't actually make your claim any better supported, so maybe instead of repeating it, provide better support or, failing that, just stop instead of reiterating.

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

#53

Post by somerando »

ralusek wrote: post #31
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

And here I was feeling bad because I have less than $100k on hand.

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

#54

Post by vkou »

gerdesj wrote: post #41

"More concerning are the 25% of Americans with no retirement savings whatsoever, according to the report." Is that true? What happens when those 25% retire or can no longer work? Ahh: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions... - not too bad - the US got a C, UK got a C+. Now back to the headline: $400 in available readies? You do have to start measuring somewhere when looking into poverty but it…

> What happens when those 25% retire or can no longer work?

They eat cat food on their meager social security payments.

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

#55

Post by rndmize »

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…

Your post is optimistic to the point I choked on my coffee.

Our economy is predicated on consumer spending; we have a whole set of industries built on the backs of poor financial decision making and being near-broke (payday loans, credit cards, overdraft charge reordering, debt collectors, etc.) all of which pull power away from desperate people and give it to others (now your landlord/phone company/ISP/etc have legal grounds to kick you out, terminate your service, etc.) Never mind the difficulty of making use of a court system stacked against the poor...

> I hope voters and politicians recognize...

Actually, it appears that voters and politicians have zero interest in improving this situation, seeing as the current administration is making every effort to demoralize and defang the CFPB[0], which was literally created to do some of the things you're interested in.

I especially like how Mulvaney is moving everything into "financial education", as if an agency with 500M budget is going to make a dent against the billions spent on marketing related to financial "services".

[0] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cfpb-student-loans-201...

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

#56

Post by headmelted »

ralusek wrote: post #31
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

Spoken as someone well north of the poverty line.

The reason for some people not having the money around is undoubtedly poor decision making, but for a great many others they simply have no gainful employment, no prospects of obtaining gainful employment and are often trapped in debt spirals due to past financial desperation.

I'm real happy for you that you're so far removed from their situation that none of this occured to you.

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

#58

Post by vkou »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #6
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’m not entirely sure why you’ve been downvoted, because this also seems intuitively obvious to me. A long-term stable society, with a controlled income and wealth gap, seems to be in the general long-term best interests of everybody, rich and poor alike.

This is good for the rich in the long term (Because it avoids violent revolutions), but bad in the short term (What are the odds there's going to be a revolution next week? Pretty low!)

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

#59

Post by rectang »

mattnewton wrote: post #50
ralusek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

Bahaha, yes, if you make perfect decisions you will have over $400. The whole point is people don’t make perfect decisions. Should they become homeless when they get hurt as a result? Does that threat help them make better decisions? Does it help society to let a small problem escalate into a larger one like that? I’d answer a resounding no on all fronts.

It gives the wealthy a pleasing sense of moral superiority to see the poor fail. Humans compete not only for resources but for status.

This alone is sufficient motivation to drive policies which ensure not just inequality, but humiliation of the losers.

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

#60

Post by wwweston »

ralusek wrote: post #31
sjg007 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But personal responsibility is actually an important concept. It is completely unacceptable to not have $400 on reserve for an emergency as a functioning adult. That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility. Any strategy that is employed to remedy this has to contend with the fact that the individuals who need to have this situation remedied for themselves…

> That is a situation that can only be achieved by poor decision making and a lack of personal responsibility.

Poor decision making or lack of personal responsibility are certainly sufficient to achieve such a situation... but they're not necessary. Unless you play with the definition of "poor decision making" to include things like "capable of making mistakes."

This could be a good time for everyone to review the concept of the Fundamental Attribution Error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Post reply on HN